Thread 4444523

This post is for stupid questions that don't deserve their own thread.
>what colour smurf beanie should I wear whilst underexposing shitty motion picture film on empty fuel stations at 2am edition

Ready to sell my old Sony a7. What system should I upgrade to?

>>4444539
If you have a collection of good lenses, whatever works with those.
If not, whatever you find most comfortable to handle and use.

as an aesthetic npc im dead set on nikon zf, but what about a lens that will suffice for my first year(s) of taking shit photos? 24-120 zoom? keep reading good stuff about this lens

I'm having a lot of trouble getting focus on bees with my Sony a6600. What do? I'm trying to catch them flying into a flower or hovering near one.

Focus tracking didn't work. It loses the lock when the bee flies off the flower. Wide or zone doesn't work because the camera keeps focusing on the petals.

Do I close down the aperture and use MF or something?

>>4444611
the 24-120 is good, but hard to carry - it creeps. i sold mine and got the 24-70 f/4 instead.

Why is it so difficult to focus with an f/1.2 lens?

>>4444621
because you're retarded

>>4444630
So what, retards can photograph too.
Now answer the question.

>>4444615
>Do I close down the aperture and use MF or something?
Yes or just compose your shot, get the focus generally right and zoom in on where you think the bee is going to be and it'll probably be faster if you just move your camera closer or farther away to get the bee in focus. Within reason anyway.

>>4444621
because you have a shitty camera with bad AF

>>4444615
Do single point and put that point on the bee

Reader's digest tier OP

>>4444641
The Canon R100 is the new mirroless tech and puts the older tech dslrs to shame.

>>4444652
>Canon R100
Even at the price range it's not very good, an a7II is significantly better

>>4444652
>he can't focus because there's no touchscreen to tap focus
haha

>>4444652
The R100 is garbage and the only reason you would buy one is if you were hell bent on not buying a superior second hand product in the max $500 range.

>>4444666
The R100 has to be turbo shit to hit a price point, sold new, satan
The R50 and R10 are much less shitty

Also better overall cameras than the bottom tier sony E offerings, and WAY better cameras than nikons entire DX lineup. No need to mention fuji or m43 its not even a contest. Canon is the king of making super shit budget cameras.

>>4444652
>canon sensor
Why does canon bake NR into raws instead of leaving it to jpegs? Even with the cheating, their raw DXO scores are too low to take notice of. No one buying a canon (the NPC brand) knows or cares about tonality, and when they see it it's too fine of a pattern for the NPC brain to register.

Is canon's IQ going backwards?

>>4444678
Do you photograph and calculate graphs? What are you, a photo engineer?
The Canon R100 has a high-value 24.1 MP sensor Digic 8 Dual Pixel AF.
More than enough for professional high-paid work or to expose your art in a gallery.

hahahaha lmfao
>canon
>such high mirroress technorogy
micro four thirds wins
canon is IRRELEVANT

>>4444681
>The Canon R100 has a high-value 24.1 MP sensor
My phone has 200mp. Canon loses.
>Digic 8 Dual Pixel AF.
My phone has a 3.6 MHz octa-core MediaTek Dimensity 9400. Those numbers sound a lot bigger so they are better.

>inb4 "its not the numbers its what they mean, it's the quality, you dont understand nuance, its math, but, 3d pop tonality!"
Nope. Autistic pixel peeper. No soul. Hylic. STEMbug. Not a person. No divine spark. No feeling. Phone > canon.

>>4444687
Imagine using your phone to take pictures, pretending it doesn't look like AI.

>>4444689
Phones aren't AI, they just apply AI to certain file formats to hide the fact that they look almost as bad as a canon RP's raw files.

The sony a7rv plus a sharp lens like a GM or the viltrox f2 is actually the bare minimum to noticeably edge ahead of an iphone for most people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2X2NVBlpYw

>>4444679
They're catering to EZ-mode casuals and max fps pros. There's some overlap with those two groups in terms of what technology makes the most sense. I'd argue the RP isn't a great representation of current-gen performance though. Unfortunately I think everything post R8 has baked in NR until ISO 800. Reee.

>>4444523 (OP)
Why do people shill old medium format?
>Be me
>download H3D 39II raw samples
>literally fucking nothing opens them properly except this turbo dogshit program called phocus
>the shadows are super flat
>the highlights blow easily
>it's comparable to stitching 4 nikon 200 raws together, if not a little worse (way less shadow detail to recover)
Is there an affordable MFDB that is actually good or are they all super shit at anything but having 10% more color depth at a base ISO of 30?

>>4444691
Even the cheapest canon lens, the EF 50 f/1.8 STM renders sharpness a phone cannot dream of replicating, unless they manufacture it weighting 1/1000 of your mom. Then, yeah, we would have quality, sharpness and pretty heavy elements.
Canon r100 is also portable and it has the green mode for quick pictures

>>4444697
This is a flat out lie. An iPhone is within spitting distance of a sony 24mm GM which is a much sharper lens than the shittiest canon. >>4444692

So your cheap canon has the same sharpness and DR as a phone with super blurry, CA ridden shit outside of the dead center of the photo and all you can do is bokeh. have fun but iphones are good enough for 99% of people and the only real upgrade is a real camera like a nikon z8, sony a7rv, or gfx100s.

>>4444699
I think you don't understand how cameras work. Do you watch youtube and pretend you're put taking pictures? Go grab a camera and study it for a while. You will be fascinated at how the "better" iPhone cannot be compared to even the shitties dslr with an mid-tier prime lens.

>>4444703
>if i fuck up the exposure, the iphone looks much worse
Then dont fuck up. Get it right in camera.
>but i can use other focal lengths and bokeh
So can micro four thirds.

This is the state of photography.

What are the best, dogshit cheap EF-S Lenses? Im willing to buy random chink shit to try it out if the price is right.

>>4444715
The state of photography is thinking one is superior than the other because they have:

-A newer camera;
-A much worse gear, compensated by "skill";
-A brand with more "reputation";
-Technical knowledge in things that don't matter in real life usage;
-More experience in lenght of time taking photos, which is not at all proportional to one's actual skills or capabilities;
-Among others.

>>4444717
EF-S 55-250 IS STM.
Honestly, it's a piece of shit IQ wise, but it's good for the price, if that makes sense to you.

>>4444695
Unfortunately the sinar emotion 75h is considered the best of all the dalsa chip CCD sensors of that era. I have a cfv39 40MP mfdb for my rollei 6008 and it is a lot worse looking than the emotion back. You need a mac to convert the emotion raw files to dng properly.

You have to step up to the =>80MP phase one sensors that start around 4k-6k if want something better. They have a very low base iso as well, 32 I think. You can get a mamiya 645d body to shoot with them if you don't want to pay the premium for the XF bodies and ultra expensive lenses for the system.

The emotion back is incredible in the right situations, but in all honesty the best thing to do is to save up for a cfv100c if you are unhappy with the relatively affordable 33MP backs...

>>4444719
>EF-S 55-250 IS STM
Hmmm, I did just pick up a 18-135 for like $120 from a closing camera store sale. Maybe I'll keep an eye out to have more tele options. F4-5.6 IS brutal though, I definitely feel it on my 3.5-5.6. I guess half a stop aint too bad though.

>>4444638
no

>>4444722
I suppose the one you got is slightly better than the former. BUT I haven't personally used it so I cannot give a rating or opinion.
It has a flexible range, too.

>>4444722
Also keep an eye on versions, there are bad and good ones. You need to google it. If you struggle with aperture, get an EF-S 24 2.8 STM lens (35mm equivalent).

>>4444724
>>4444725

Yeah right now in terms of kit I have:

90D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (Kit lens from EF 50mm f/1.8
EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 (Basically made my old kit lens useless)

Im mostly struggling with tight spaces, so I'll probably prioritize something at less than 18mm for wider angels. Maybe I'll try and find a 10-18 for cheap.

>>4444728
The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is also really good, but more expensive.

>>4444678
people that actually use cameras dont care about this geek shit
>>4444679
theres not even any difference in these images just a blurry tube of something
>>4444722

>>4444739
BASED.

>>4444728
>Im mostly struggling with tight spaces
Grab the EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 STM. Cheap as shit and is basically the only ultrawide worth buying for APS-C canon. I got one for $150 AUD and I use it more than some of my more expensive lenses purely because it can get shots others can't. Only reason to ever sell it / ignore it is if you go full frame.
Your kit is pretty well rounded for most things except birding and action sports.

>>4444743
Yeah, thats what Im thinking too. If I get a good deal, I'll snag one.

I also have a 50mm f1.8 I thought I listed but it's not. I know a bigger gear upgrade to full frame is coming along eventually, so I don't want to spend too much on my APS-C Kit. But I think that will pretty much cover all my bases.

I also just posted this in the RPT but this is from the 18-135mm. This is APS-C at a 5.6 fstop (because I was zoomed in to probably 80-100mm in low light. (CRANK THAT ISO BABYYY. I LOVE GRAIN) and I do think people tend to put too much stock into fstop. I love having 1.8 on my 50 but I think you can balance the triangle out enough to still get decent stuff.

>>4444743
is that lens worth grabbing if i have ff body or nah?

>>4444611
40mm prime

>>4444615
welcome to macro photography. Set up your focus and comp before hand and just machine gun it while very slowly moving closer of farther away

>>4444750
Won't fill the image circle. Could be used in a pinch but you'd only get like 9MP out of a 24MP sensor. Don't think it's worth. Would be serviceable for video though and mount conversions exist to fit it to EF.

>>4444758
THE MACRO WIGGLE.

Are there and non-subscription based alternatives that have do photo management / ability to copy edits to multiple photos and have features like auto transform, auto align, and auto selection of subject or sky?

what are the stereotypes of people who use canon, nikon, sony, fujifilm, panasonic, om, etc

>>4444911
>canon
fat dad that bought it because the NFL sidelines photographers had it
or
NFL sidelines photographer
>nikon
either national geographic wannabe or actually with national geographic.
>sony
high flying professional who books clients and shoots hot models.
>fujifilm
petulant trust fund kid who spend 2 hours photographing his moms driveway and called it an artistic study of texture. over 9000 photos taken of the backs of strangers heads.
>panasonic
spec sheet warrior who memorizes codecs and spends 2 hours a day comparing all-i and longgop footage
>OM
pothead who just wanted a cool looking camera that was better than their phone and didn't want to blow all their weed money on a sony.
>hyvsw8
even more stoned pothead who spends more time looking through viewfinder and saying "woaaaah, reality duuuuuude" than they do taking photos

>>4444957
>hyvsw8
that was like
meant to say pentax
dude

(i shoot pentax btw)

>>4444957
>even more stoned pothead who spends more time looking through viewfinder and saying "woaaaah, reality duuuuuude" than they do taking photos
you don't need to be stoned to enjoy seeing the light through the lens, or to shoot Pentax for that matter (but I'm glad the people in charge of Pentax are aware of the unique joy of reflex)

>>4444975
Notice he does not deny being stoned

>>4444978
Taking issue with the implication was an implicit denial in itself.

>>4444980
Cope pothead

>>4444957
adding to my lore

>>4444982
Anon, I have never smoked pot or consumed any marijuana product ever. Can't say the same about coke though, never used it but did taste it.

>>4444983
Conceptual portrait of the fujislug

>>4444957
hmm I wonder what this posters bias is

>>4444984
Cocaine fiend in denial, sad!

>>4444911
>>4444957
>hasselblad
insanely rich, has a MASSIVE penis, probably famous

>>4444983
Leica people: the ugly truth
>yeah dude this camera was such a good purchase it was just 11k like its the best camera ever dude
>What the fuck?
>its got like, micro tonal harvesting man

>>4445003
leica people, the actual truth
>yeah bro idk how much this thing costs I had my butler buy it for me
>pictures? nah I don't take pictures with it I have my butler take pictures using it

lol isn't leica just rehoused lumix? What's the point?

>>4445004
Lol thinking leica people are rich

Rich people shoot phase one.

>>4445005
the point is to trigger people like
>>4445003
>>4445004
>>4445006

>>4445008
leicope

>>4445006
Rich people shoot Hasselblad. Phase One is for people with jobs

>>4445008
>I spent $30,000 on a camera to own the libs

>>4445009
>>4445013
lol triggered

Why people buy cameras and lenses with features they don't even need?
Aka getting a Sony A7RV to photograph flowers

>>4445020
To feel like pros and whatever. There's different points where it's about specs and brand name, with amateurs going for high spec they don't need (Sony A7RV) and brand whores just going for expensive brands for the status (Leica).

>>4445020
Maybe a camera that is inexpensive to own at first then you pay to unlock features you need would work better for you.

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

>>4445023
What host device?
What is the card actually plugged into?
Is the m.2 actually good?
Various factors will fuck your speed.

>>4445023
I don't know. I get something like that, maybe a bit faster using some multicard reader I bought from a closing down shop about 15 years ago. The main advantage to faster cards is so you don't overload the cameras RAM/memory buffer or whatever you call it. I'd just live with it and go make a coffee/have a wank or whatever while it transfers unless you're actually some action reporter that absolutely needs your photos uploaded and sent off 20 seconds after some politician shits their pants.

>>4445023
Are you using the official sony reader? Chinese knockoffs are slower

>>4445023
I just use a USB C cable directly from the camera into the computer to transfer to a drive. I easily hit 100mb/s+ doing that. So maybe the card reader you have is just shit.

>>4444984
>fuck yeah, cocaine

>>4444642
The bee's moving around, in and out.

>>4444758
>>4444640
>machine gun
>more photos to cull
O-okay... I've been resisting the burst but I might have to give in.

If I'm moving and shooting, I'll probably need pretty fast shutter speed? Like 1/800? And I'll probably need f11 for the DoF?

Maybe I should start carrying a light on my walks...

Here's an out of focus bee.

Where's the best place to sell my gear?

>>4445159
gear is illegal in most countries so i can't tell you brah

>>4445159
Facebook marketplace

>>4444957
>>sony
>high flying professional who books clients and shoots hot models.

Are hot pixels a defect? Or an artifact of high temps and high ISO? Do they ever persist or become permanent?

it is impossible for a photography virgin to understand all the technical shit before making a big purchase. i give up. im going to buy lots of weed instead, fuck having 800 different lens option goddamn Z motherfuckers

>>4445020
Why does the alt right poverty cult feel the need to tell working class people YEE DUNT NEED THAT UNLESS UR GETTING PAID TO USE IT if they dare purchase a SINGLE LUXURY?

Did you forget this is a capitalist country and you can actually MAKE EXTRA MONEY? Did you? You know you dont keep cable internet or a smartphone that costs more than $250 or a nice computer either right?

>>4445157
I know the other anon said machine gun but that's not what I was suggesting. I mean to crop in, press the magnifying glass or whatever on your camera so it zooms in on the screen and move your camera closer in that example until the bee is in focus. Within reason of course, you don't want the flower to be completely out of focus but it's a lot quicker to track small, fast moving things like bees.

>>4445181
Pretty much every camera sensor will have hot pixels, but under normal temps and short (less than a second) exposures they typically don't show. When your sensor gets hot from heavy use, or long exposures are when they'll show. High ISO doesn't increase hot pixels per se, but since it applies a higher gain to ALL data, hot pixels have that gain applied to them as well. This is partly why astrophotography needs dark frames, since long exposure times and repeated exposures in a dark environment make hot pixels very obvious.
They *can* turn permanent but it's normally an issue more with computer monitors that are constantly powered for long periods of time. With camera it would be unlikely unless the wafer was defective or you're constantly running it super hot.

>>4445186
Responding to your previous comment, you can probably hit max fps at 1/100th, but for something moving like a bee I would recommend 1/250+ at a minimum. f8-22 is generally where I'd say to keep the aperture, and that comes down to the specific subject and desired DoF. Yep, that means a speedlite is your best option so you're not pushing ISO 12800. The flash itself also helps freeze movement.

>>4445184
And even when you do use it to make money they just shit on that too

>>4445157
The problem is that you are using a shitty camera
If you want to take pictures of things that move fast get a sony a7rv

>>4445190
>Sony A7RV

poorfag detected you need at least a A1 for bee photos

>>4445184
It's brain damage from associating reddit and "nu males" with the "consoom product" meme. Their low IQs couldn't handle it all at once and they turned into communists seething at their dad for buying a nice boat and grill when he isn't a fishing guide nor does he run a restaurant.

>>4445184
That anon was questioning the rationale behind buying something that not only is marginally more expensive to own, but also likely gets in the way. Even Ken Rockwell gets it. Even the woke leftists who wrote that show Veep get it (herons catching fish scene). To the clueless beginner, more features are often just more things to misconfigure. There is such a thing as an overkill camera. I know a guy who had bought a humble D5300 and thought it was defective because he was getting extreme shutter lag. He didn't speak English and the camera was English/Japanese only because it was gray market. I took a look and he had the shutter in quiet mode. Changing that single setting fixed all his issues.

>>4445203
You're just low IQ, as is 50% of the population. I had every feature on my A9II figured out in 2 days just from playing with it on the couch.

>>4445203
Wow. I didn't know we had heroes amongst us.

>>4445204
Most people aren't gonna do that because they have friends, children, wives, and more interesting hobbies than aiming a scanner and pressing a button

>>4445207
>everyone is always out and about all the time and has no free time at all
The average father spends 6 hours a day watching football and his average wife spends the same amount of time on pinterest and tiktok, retard. Every kid in school has at least 8 hours a day to spend on discord. You all suck at managing time.

>>4445209
Spoken like someone with too much free time, how about you get laid?

>>4445210
Getting laid IRL takes <10 minutes. Sorry porn convinced you otherwise.

Hello dear friends and colleagues,

The d-pad/jog dial on my Panasonic G9 started acting stupid. It needs to be replaced. Is there a way I can buy individual parts from Panasonic? Their website seems to only list body caps and battery doors. I looked on ebay for "parts only" broken G9s and they barely cost any less than a fully functioning replacement.

>>4445216
Hello sir

Panasonic, pentax, and olympus cameras are well known for part failures. Every model has its list of parts that fail early, like a power switch, an aperture solenoid, the rubber grips, the mode dial, the tripod plate or a screen cable. If you buy another one it will break again.

Canon/Nikon/Sony are the most reliable. Nikon has the lowest failure rate and is good with recalls and free repairs but still has grip detachment issues, Canon has the highest failure rate and unacknowledged recall-worthy mistakes, Sony is in the middle with a generally good reputation but unacknowledged fuckups.

>>4445211
Sorry about your premature ejaculation issues sonybro

>>4445230
On god bruh, dont tell me you actually blueball yourself and hold it in. That's so cucked. Tindr thots last one night just do what you want and leave. I had sex last night, no foreplay, I didnt cuddle, I just did a ho, left the room and got a panda bowl.

>>4445235
I literally last hours lmao, no blueball, just fucking. Most women lack the stamina to get me off.

>>4445251
That must suck. Imagine taking hours to finish one woman.

>>4445253
I actually finish her multiple times before she manages to finish me off.

>>4445254
>I actually finish her multiple times
this might just be the gayest thing i've seen on this webzone to date.

>>4445255
I once dated one who'd experience pain if I kept going after she orgasmed, had to dump the bitch.

>>4445254
Yeah, but does she squirt?

>>4445183
It's not that hard, just get something that has manual controls and good autofocus and you're set. A beginner doesn't need to know more than that from the start.

>>4445188
>They *can* turn permanent but it's normally an issue more with computer monitors
Don't some cameras account for this? I forget what it's called but every few months the camera will shift something around to hide them.

i hate using vintage museum pieces as my gear. leica m6 and hassy 500cm are great but im thinking of replacing them with a nikon f2 and mamiya rb67... the downsides are basically not significant given that the replacements are cheaper than repair and basic maintenance on the m6 and 500cm
>f2 has better composition, metering and flash sync speed than the leica m6
>f2 is significantly bigger and heavier and its lenses are noticeably worse
>rb67 has brighter focus screens, 6x7 is nicer than 6x6, and the rb67 focus knob is way faster and nicer than the hasselblad focus rings.
>rb67 is significantly bigger and heavier, lenses are half a stop slower or more and the wide angle lenses are maybe a little worse
will i regret this

i hate using vintage museum pieces as my gear. leica m6 and hassy 500cm are great but im thinking of replacing them with a nikon f2 and mamiya rb67... the downsides are basically not significant given that the replacements are cheaper than repair and basic maintenance on the m6 and 500cm
>f2 has better composition, metering and flash sync speed than the leica m6
>f2 is significantly bigger and heavier and its lenses are noticeably worse
>rb67 has brighter focus screens, 6x7 is nicer than 6x6, and the rb67 focus knob is way faster and nicer than the hasselblad focus rings.
>rb67 is significantly bigger and heavier, lenses are half a stop slower or more and the wide angle lenses are maybe a little worse
is this stupid

>>4445302
Just be sure to get the grip for the rb67 if you plan on using it handheld.

>>4445302
>F2
Why? Just get a proper camera.
F80, F100, F5

>>4445312
f100 looks perfect, its only 200 grams heavier with aa batteries. thanks

>>4445302
>I hate using vintage museum pieces
>so how about these other vintage museum pieces
Am I being trolled here? That’s a side grade if anything.

>>4445302
>Buying SLRs
Lmao more like single lens poorflex

>>4444523 (OP)
Is there a dumber group of cucks than digital medium format shooters? Every $50,000 camera ends up outperformed by full frame 5 years later. I went MFDB shopping and everything under a phase one iq180 is outclassed by FF already.

No wonder they buy for $50k and sell for $5k (and it should be even less)

>>4445320
that plastishit time bomb is more expensive than all the cameras mentioned so far combined

>>4445322
Well bud, you see, every film camera that isnt a brand new leica mp is a time bomb, and every film camera that isn't canon EF or a leica uses super shit lenses, so you're kind of fucked for being a pixel peeper and a filmfag who can't nut up and buy the nice shit for hasselblad and pay to have it properly maintained.

Maybe you could buy a bronica gs1 and hope for the best?

>>4444621
thin DOF at f1.2, and it gets thinner when the subject gets nearer, especially in macro

>>4445216
try spraying it with an electronic contact cleaner first. remove the battery and sd card before spraying

>>4445317
Glad I could help.
It takes all kinds of modern AF-S lenses, in addition to the old stuff. Even supports VR.

I'm looking to buy an old second hand camera & lens, to take pictures of shit on vacation and around town.
Currently considering:
an Olympus OM-D E-M1,
and Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH Mega O.I.S.

Is that retarded?
I like the idea of interchangeable lenses you I could upgrade it incrementally.
To be clear, I don't really know anything about photography

>>4445498
do you care about photographing things in low light conditions?

>>4445499
A bit, but not that much.
I'm assuming it would be better than my phone, at least

>>4445498
>>4445499
actually without you answering that I'll just tell you that's not a good choice. If you're looking to spend $500 on a body and $100 on a lens you should just get the Nikon z50 with the 16-50mm lens.
It's a significantly newer camera with a larger sensor that will gather more light while still being a fairly small and light setup

>>4445501
>>4445502

>>4445502
Quickly googling around that seems quite a bit more expensive, like €550 vs €400, both for the cheapest dog shit second hand stuff.
I'd prefer to keep it under 500, although I imagine all of this stuff has pretty good resale value if it turns out I can't be bothered to use it.

>>4445507
ah they're the same price in the US. If you don't really like photography you wont lose much if any money on it. You could try going with a canon or nikon dslr those just aren't modern lens mounts. The upside of that is actually that everything is released so there is no wondering if something better will come out. All I know is that a 12 year old Olympus is not really a good idea for the money

>>4445520
>All I know is that a 12 year old Olympus is not really a good idea for the money
2013 is only a few years ago though, but yeah if you put it like that it doesn't feel like it makes a lot of sense.

>>4445525
>2013 is only a few years ago though
anon it's over a decade ago. Point is you can get something newer for the money

>>4445498
Nikon D5600 with a kit lens off ebay.

>>4445498
em5iii/em1ii and lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6 is the minimum to make m43 worth it

Otherwise save up and get a sony a7c and the sony 28-60 kit zoom and viltrox 50mm f2

This will trigger massive sony hater seethe. Ignore it. They make shit up and misrepresent cherry picked and photoshopped memes.

>>4445540
DSLR IQ has been surpassed by phones. They’re inferior. Mirrorless has better af accuracy, better smaller lenses for cheaper, better metering, no mirror shock/shutter shock…

The idea of a zoom that is sharp wide open is a $1000 fantasy for a DSLR user, or a cope (“every lens is sharp at f11 after photoshop”)
But its normal on mirrorless
Primes that are sharp wide open are the same story. SLR lenses are inferior for the same price/size.

Micro four thirds > phone > dlsaar ewaste

>>4445541
He can get a better camera than the olympus without saving up
>>4445545
wrong on all counts

>>4445539
>anon it's over a decade ago
Don't remind me

>>4445540
I'm starting to get persuaded to buy an old dslr.

>>4445545
There is absolutely no way that my phone takes better pictures than any real camera.
>zoom that is sharp wide open is a $1000 fantasy for a DSLR user, or a cope (“every lens is sharp at f11 after photoshop”)
I have no idea what the fuck any of that means.

>>4445541
Saving up is not the problem, I'm an autist from /g/ with more money than I know what to do with, I just don't want to spend more than €500 on some glass and a light sensor. Call me crazy.

>>4445550
>There is absolutely no way that my phone takes better pictures than any real camera.
correct he is trying to troll you because you are new. Also stop being a miser and just get something modern that will get new releases if you have so much money

>>4445550
Unlike PCs, which were driven by chinese-israeli-american brilliance and plateaued early, cameras were driven by stick in the mud japs that milk decades old tech for 10 years and purposefully hobbled nice shit with excess size and ugliness because they thought anyone who complained would dishonor the brando by not being pro enough.

You have to spend to get something excusable. Japanese idiocy is why phones overtook cameras so rapidly. Under american-israeli-chinese ownership the camera industry would have released stuff like the a7cr before the iphone 5 came out.

>>4445550
You would be surprised

> I have no idea what the fuck any of that means
DSLR lenses are, on average, BAD. Blurry. Hazy. Purple outlines. Low contrast. Poor color transmission. This is because to build a nice lens, optics must go where the mirror is, or a huge expensive precision made retrofocus or telephoto design must be used. The photographer cope in lieu of buying the giant lens is to close the aperture a fucktonne which improves some optical issues and then apply unsharp mask in photoshop. Peep ken rockwell’s profile for the results.

The brand leica, despite being very far behind in technology, stayed alive solely because they didnt make DSLRs, snd instead made good small lenses. And now sony has #1 full frame camera market share because they got rid of the shit ass mirror box assembly first.

>>4445552
phones take compressed soft watercolor bullshit with no manual controls though

>>4445553
The mirror isn't used when taking a photo. It's for the viewfinder. Why are you wasting energy being a shill for a concept that doesn't even exist?

>>4445550
if you know what you’re doing and would use 24mm anyways iphones are good enough. it takes a much better camera than any dslr and leaving the wide angle safe space to beat phones.

>inb4 muh d850 on a tripod with a $1000 zeiss bazooka sized prime is great i just use mirror lockup. who needs to have a camera with them? dslrs are fine just leave your camera in your trunk or be fat so you dont feel the strap
lol

>>4445555
The mirror is where optics are meant to go
The mirror means focus is always slightly off because the imaging plane and focusing plane are always going to be slightly different
The vibrations from actuating the mirror interfere with exposure and make images look soapy and low resolution

SLRs are a bad design. Mirrorless is a good design. Japan overinvested in clunky garbage - again.

>>4445551
The funny thing about money, I'd prefer to keep it.
Also why should I care about "new releases", I'm not sure I even understand what that means in the context of a camera.
I just want to take pictures that don't look like ass, and I'd enjoy learning a bit about photography in the process.

>>4445552
I'm sure, thanks buddy

>>4445553
If I understand your argument, DSLRs can take nice pictures, but the lenses to do so would be outside of my budget?

>>4445556
The phone argument is a lost cause, I already own a phone, I am not replacing it any time soon, and I know for a fact that it takes shit pictures.

>>4445557
dont forget mirror = cant have shit for AF coverage on a large sensor. thats a lot of action photos that literally cant be reliably taken without cropping or hoping for the best while manually twisting the focus ring

>>4445553
Does it hurt to be so stupid, anon? Cramming optics near the sensor plane is how you get the horrid mirrorlesscuck vignetting that they compensate for with postprocessing. The light rights are hitting so obliquely that a lot of the light is simply LOST. The results out of mirrorless cameras are just FAKE.

>>4445557
so you made up this whole story because you can't take good pictures. Just try getting good instead

>>4445558
The sony a6500 sounds perfect for you. Cheap, compact, capable, has image stabilization. No extra concerns or bullshit to dance around design flaws. Shoots raw (which is 50% of photography, and has been since the days of negative film). Simply do not get it wet.

Pick up a sigma 18-50 f2.8 and then buy an f1.8 prime in your most used or wanted length setting. Wala. Welcome to photography.

>>4445559
AF pixels are sacrificed imaging pixels unless it's DPAF. Enjoy your missing information filled by computer guesswork. As if Bayer weren't bad enough already.

>>4445558
>If I understand your argument, DSLRs can take nice pictures, but the lenses to do so would be outside of my budget?
He's just shilling against DSLRs as a way to cope with buyer's remorse for buying a mirrorless scamera.

>>4445560
Nonsense from a flat earther moonie. 4chan X users can see your post history, retard. FF sized mounts like Z have no vignetting issues.

>>4445562
Its so made up the market share rankings are determined by who got to mirrorless first and who has the most cheap mirrorless models, and any company that was late or incapable is dead or near death. Fucking sony got #1 FF share just by releasing good FF mirrorless first, despite a small lens mount that forces poor ray angles. That is how much mirrorless mogs SLRs.

SLRs are an inherently bad design. Everything about them is the opposite of what an imaging system needs. The correct solution on analog would have been precision zooming optical rangefinders, but alas, $$$$$.

>>4445565
>this cope again
Interpolating an extra pixel or two per every 50 isnt shit compared to mirror shock, shutter shock (dlsaars cant efcs, at least not any good ones), AF inaccuracy outside of live view, how strong most DSLR AA filters are, or how bad DSLR lenses are. The nikkor z 24-70 f4 is a kit zoom and its sharper than every single F mount prime under $1000.

Does a camera like the Z9 do everything for you, if you want it to? I'm looking for something that just lets me shoot, hate menu diving, hate fucking around with settings, hate everything "technical" about photography.

>>4445572
yeah, they’re designed for news agency interns. it has auto subject detect auto focus. id get the z5iii tho, you dont need silent shutter with a high sync speed. thats for fags who shoot golf and public speeches.

>>4445564
Quickly looking those seem to be about €700 second hand, might be a location thing, I'm in western Europe.

>>4445568
I'd believe you more if you weren't name fagging

>>4445564
sq for /sqt/: are there 40mm equiv primes like that for E-mount crop?

>>4445573
*z5ii
the z5iii does not exist
(but when it does it’ll have a 16+ stop DR 16 bit sensor from RED instead of the 14 bit snoysensor)

>>4445574
Good stuff costs more in yurop, sorry m8. It doesnt hurt to save up considering cameras are technologically a bit stunted and they’re having a social media hype moment.

>>4445572
consider https://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/bf/

>>4445572
Higher end cameras tend to be the opposite. Instead of menu diving, you have many more custom buttons for direct control. When using the menu, you'll also find much more options and settings to adjust.
Most any camera can do full auto if you want and simpler cameras tend to have more easy / auto options.

>>4445580
>shit autofocus
>no shutter, slower than 1/30s readout in 14 bit
Its junk

Sigmasonic has released the fp 3 times and no matter how much their paid off reviewers praise it, it never gets good. When will they tire of trying not to step on panasonic m43’s toes and release a real sony a7c competitor? A business can not succeed if it is afraid of beating its prior achievements.

>>4445569
>market share
you can't take a good picture on a mirrorless either

>>4445572
higher end cameras offer higher levels of control. If you're an actual creative you don't want computers doing everything for you. If defeats the purpose. You should just stick with your phone

>>4445577
Bit of a tangent, but what does "saving up" mean to you, I hear it so much in these kind of contexts.
Do you think I have less than €700 in my bank account, or that spending that money would put me at risk of financial issues if e.g. my car broke?
I don't know how to say this with it coming off like I'm bragging, but it's €700, I could miss it.
But being a big boy adult means not spending few grand on random shit every month.
So I could afford it, I just think that <500 is a reasonable ceiling for what I'm trying to get here.

>>4445582
I have a feeling its actually that their mutual relationship with leica might include an off the record clause that forbids them from releasing a better camera than the leica Q.

Which would not be hard to achieve. The leica Q isn’t very good. It’s just there’s a technically good lens glued to it.

>>4445585
Then go ahead and get it. A half decent mirrorless camera does not need upgraded for years especially if you know what to do with a raw file.

I can understand not buying something even better, because someone would steal it

>>4445587
I was hoping for an answer to my "saving up" question, but either way I'm not buying a €700 camera body, that is just way too much.

>>4445586
>n off the record clause that forbids them from releasing a better camera than the leica Q.
kind of implied here https://l-mount.com/en/q-and-a
>he partners in the alliance utilise the L-Mount Standard for cameras and lenses that are offered under their own brand names. They market their respective products as competitors, and each with their own product and marketing strategies.
>>4445588
>I'm not buying a €700 camera body, that is just way too much.
maybe you can find an used GR IIIx for that price cap.

>>4445588
Its a normal price really. Welcome to the camera market.

Even the "ok for an experienced gear operator" DSLRs are around that much

>>4445591
Well fuck me I guess, how on earth can a cpu with a gorillion nanometer sized transistors be so much cheaper than a camera.

>>4445592
Anon, cameras have CPUs too. Alien ASIC + DSP desings, yes, but they're CPUs.

>>4445592
>>4445593 cntd.
Also, the sensors have same yield issues CPUs do, while having much bigger area. That means bad sample is bad. And are made in semicon fabs too.

>>4445593
Surely the cost of the camera is not in the cpu
>>4445595
I guess on a sensor it's harder to just turn off a broken core, that does make sense.
But I have to imagine that the features on a sensor are quite a bit bigger than on a cpu.
Maybe not though, I don't know

>>4445596
>Surely the cost of the camera is not in the cpu
not the majority, but it's not a marginal part of the BOM. And it also has to pay for the people making the firmware etc. Margins seem to be worse than mainstream consumer electronics.
What the 2 other Anons here want to say, your 500€ cap is stupid if you want something actually nice.

>>4445588
That's been an "entry level" new price for decades
You'd double that for the hobbyist tier, and 3-5x for the advanced enthusiast / pro
You can get older but nicer stuff used at that price, but that is definitely a modest amount to really engage with the hobby

what do you think of when you see pics from fujifilm cameras?

>>4445597
>Margins seem to be worse than mainstream consumer electronics.
That is very surprising

>>4445598
But to both of you, old nicer used stuff, is exactly what I want.
Remember I came into this thread considering a camera from 2013.
I'm just looking to take some decently nice pictures and fuck around learning the basics.

>>4445599
anal sex (receiving)

>>4445592
Because sensor costs scale logarithmically with size

By a 0.8x crop factor vs 35mm they have to throw away most of the wafer

>>4445600
If you truly want to approach this as an engaging hobby instead of an autistic-artistic angst adjacent journalistic thing, skip digital and go straight to developing and printing your own film. Film cameras are cheap. Developing your own black and white is easy. If you shoot 6x9 or larger you can make cool little contact prints. The price adds up… over more time.

>>4445600
Get a 6D for about 250€, a bunch of vintage lenses and adapters for them if required. Nikon F and M42 adapt well. Get a cheap stabilized zoom, maybe EF 28-135 IS USM. Get some flashes that support remote triggering, EX series Canon will do or there's some cheaper (chink) alternatives too. Get a sturdy tripod. That should have you set for fun for a while. Don't get a 5D Mark II, it's a dinosaur. You could also get an APS-C camera but they're more expensive to expand because you don't have the massive backwards compatibility afforded to you by full frame. It's nice to have one of the higher res models for the extra reach though, but be aware that you won't be able to use the full FoV of the lens you mount on it.

>>4445600
>old nicer used stuff
But none of what I've seen mentioned is nicer though, that's the issue
That camera from 2013 was entry level-mid to begin with, and would really be like under $150 by now if prices weren't so inflated by people like you

>>4445611
Recommend me something then

>>4445610
I'll probably do that, or something similar

>>4445617
>I'll probably do that, or something similar
I'll elaborate further on the Mark II thing and its dinosaur status. It's a great camera, don't get me wrong, but highly counterintuitive and lacking in the way some features work. For example, auto ISO in manual mode is a setting. But what it does isn't adjust ISO to a value that gives a good exposure. It will fix ISO to 400. Not the case in the priority modes.

>>4445600
>To be clear, I don't really know anything about photography
>however I will authoritatively declare that if it’s not in my price bracket it must be unreasonable
Kind of contradictory innit. If you don’t know, how can you claim so? I know you’re Mr moneybags and all so it’s not about money but the sad scam is that you have to pony up to get something decent, simple as.

What is a low cost and reliable long term digital storage solution for photos in in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, 2025?

>>4445622
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
If you tell me "you cannot get a decent camera for under €500" then I'll accept that.
I'm not saying that I know that it is possible, just that that is my goal.
Otherwise I'll just simply not buy anything

>>4445622
Also regarding "Mr moneybags", I find it incredibly annoying that anytime you say something is too expensive, people think you must be poor.
>You don't want to pay $1000 for a peanut butter sandwich, ha what are you POOR
No nigger I just don't think it's worth it

>>4445628
Bear in mind you're dealing with consumerist Americans whose sense of self worth is directly proportional to their expenditures. Not all Americans are like this, but a rather large proportion is.

>>4444615
Focus on flower. Wait for bee, shoot burst mode in mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter distortion on the wings

>>4445600
If you want a good camera it costs money. Simple as. Micro four thirds is just barely ahead of modern phones if you skillmaxx and process you raws perfectly.

Photography has been crippled, as an industry, by its association with pros who keep their stuff in a dry box when not at work being 50% of the customers (AKA blobbers) and the other 50% being rich cunts who buy a new camera every six months (AKA fujisnoy leicamen). The bottom (snapping kids and vacations) of the market got stolen by phones.

I don't have any good local print shops that I know of, so what's the best bang for my buck online option? Looking to get as cheap as possible without sacrificing print quality. I do a lot of abstract photography and surrealist art with crazy colors.

>>4445645
Your photography isn't crippled by your choice of camera but by your poor technique as demonstrated a long time ago in this board by an anon with a 6D mogging the guy with the Hasselblad digital.

>>4445648
Why do you bring up technique out of nowhere when you are notoriously a horrible photographer?

It's just a fact that better cameras are better. Yes, anyone can get decent results out of total trash in a controlled studio environment. But when you're not being a pretentious angsty retard things are different.

>>4445650
Better or worse are relative terms, better at what? If you want to do scanning then sure the Hassy is better. For almost every other use it gets in the way. You may not like it, but image quality largely plateaued in the early 2010s.

>>4445653
Better period. MF digital is one area where better period stops existing, but in smaller formats progress has been obvious.

DSLRs, for example, are objectively, no-copes-unrefuted, inferior to mirrorless.

>>4445655
>DSLRs, for example, are objectively, no-copes-unrefuted, inferior to mirrorless.
lol, the 6D will keep firing when the push comes to shove and the puny mirrorless scameras give up due to a harsh winter environment

>>4445658
i do not feel like finding videos of people using their snoys in antarctica today, so go ahead and spam that bullshit where the fuji guy's battery just died

>>4445628
But if you don’t know anything about photography or its equipment, how are you making any judgments on worth? You don’t know, that’s my point.

>>4445662
gotcha covered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaryZcOcnJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8bDhyLFO3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec3l4Nuw6T0
https://www.youtube.com/watch/UzyKml9s3s4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx4odFsh6Ko

>>4445628
>It's not worth it!
It's the price.

Competitive camera sensors are advanced semiconductors. Manufacturing them is really fucking expensive. Over $1000 of a camera's price can be the sensor.

Our local DSLR shill (cANON with his trip off) posted this image as an example, he claimed, of the D750's usability. Notice how blurry it is and how there's color casts in the shadows. A Z6II would blow this piece of shit away just because it has a better sensor.

>>4445662
No need for any winter for the Sony timer to make the shutter curtains destroy themselves))

>>4445667
How can someone take this picture and think it doesn't make it look like their camera is junk and their dog is abused? Lmao it looks terrified

>>4445668
Two can play at the cherry picking busted cameras game
>be canon dslr
>have green line shaped pattern noise in low light
>self destruct

>>4445667
The image quality of DSLRs is exactly this bad.

>>4445667
User error, not my photo BTW. The only Nikon stuff I have nowadays are a couple lenses.

>>4445672
>User error
Oh sister, that's the peak of the nikon D750s image quality. Multiple tests have confirmed its bad low light abilities compared to dual gain sensors and extreme softness from its overly strong AA filter and poorly dampened mirror.

Mirrorless is just better.

>>4445675
Learn to expose, huskyfag.

>>4444684
Are you completely blind?
>R5 ii has the most detail by far, while being a fully stacked sensor, in the least favorable conditions for one.
>ZF has the best noise by far.
>Both m4/3 cameras are worse at everything, ass always.
m4/3 cope must cause permanent brain damage.

>>4445675
You can shoot dual gain RAW video on a 2007 DSLR if you're so-inclined. Mirrorless isn't some incredible tech, it's removing the mirror from a DSLR, forcing it to stay in live view and processing (faking) the image you feed to the screen it now has in place of a genuine viewfinder.

I'm looking for mirrorred/mirrorless digital camera recommendations in the 700-900 USD range that's available in the European market. I'm also okay with buying used. I assume mirrorless will be more expensive for the same performance as a similar mirrored just for the smaller size and weight, but idk. I'd probably use it somewhat for deep field astrophotography as well so having a full-frame sensor and bulb mode would be a plus, but it will mostly be used for cityscape and general photography. Wifi sharing would be nice too but not necessary.

>>4445684
>I'd probably use it somewhat for deep field astrophotography as well so having a full-frame sensor and bulb mode would be a plus
Actually for deep sky a smaller, denser sensor is often more desirable. You'll need a telescope if you're serious about it too, regular photography lenses will leave you longing for more reach.

>>4445684
As for wifi sharing, it's more of a hassle than it's worth with most cameras. Camera manufacturers tend to use some rather outdated and cumbersome approaches to wifi. If your phone supports microSD cards you could use a 6D which uses SD with a micro adapter.

>>4445685
I already have the entire astrophotography kit, tracking mount and coma corrector included, I tried it like 10 years ago and dropped it. Got the urge to get back into it, as well as just trying my hand at photography, and thought of replacing the old 600D I have.

>>4445685
also, since deep field objects are comparatively large and dim, wouldn't a full-frame sensor be better for deep sky since larger pixels gather more light meaning there will be less thermal noise per pixel at higher ISOs and less noise after stacking? Why denser sensor?

>>4445699
Total light gathered is what truly matters, and the imaging circle on astro equipment tends to not be great. The denser sensor lets you make full use of your optics' resolution, because it resolves more with the same optical setup. It also heats up less.

>>4445702
I have a 130mm aperture and 650mm focal length reflector telescope that I'd be attaching the camera to with an adapter, does that change anything?

>>4445704
>f/5.0
man the bokeh must suck on that

>>4445667
>huskyfag is cANON
it all makes so much sense

>>4445617
For the same price (or less), a new entry level mirrorless would simply be better
Something "nicer" that old in the price range would be like a 5D2/5D3/6D or D610/D700/D750/D800

>>4445704
Well how big is the usable image circle projected by it? It's a complicated question because it depends on things like you having a Barlow or not, for example.

I'm waiting on my E-M5 Mark II to arrive, is this SD card good enough for it? It's 46€ for 64GB and 95€ for 128GB. Planning to shoot in RAW+JPG, realistically how many shots can the 64GB hold before I need to clear it out?

>>4445709
About tree fiddy

>>4445720
It doesn't matter what SD card you buy for an E-M5. Burst shooting doesn't work with AF tracking for any speeds higher than Continuous L (locked on first shot), and video is very rudimentary.

>>4445720
>E-M5 Mark II
complete overkill. I get like 3500 raws on a 24mp camera out of 128gb

Is it time to long nikon?
https://www.eoshd.com/news/what-to-expect-from-nikons-first-red-mirrorless-camera-the-nikon-zr/

>>4445723
>>4445724
I'll get it (the 64GB one) anyway since it's the cheapest UHS-II SD card I could find, maybe it'll be more useful when I upgrade to a newer MFT body in the very distant future.

>>4445727
I don't think the camera can actually hit the bitrate of UHS-1. The highest transfer recorded by an em5ii user is 83MBPS, and UHS-1 supports 104MBPS.

Olympus just spent $5 extra on the slot to look good to reviewers

>>4445730
>The highest transfer recorded by an em5ii user is 83MBPS, and UHS-1 supports 104MBPS.
Hmm, so you're saying I can get away with this one just fine for the life of the E-M5? (It's 20€)
I don't really plan on shooting video btw, it's more of a "just in case" and "I'm too lazy to delete stuff" situation

>>4445733
just get a 32 gb anon. This is going to be like 5000 shots

>>4445734
The 32gb one is barely 10€ cheaper for like 4 times less storage, I might as well get this one.

Is this kit good enough to start out? How often would I have to get a new microfiber cloth and are the single use wipes worth it? I've never cleaned lenses before.

>>4445720
By the way, should I buy new batteries? The E-M5 I bought has just about 6.6k shots on it and if the seller used the batteries more or less equally I'm guessing they still have a few cycles left in them.

WHAT IS A LOW COST AND RELIABLE LONG TERM DIGITAL STORAGE SOLUTION FOR PHOTOS IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, 2025?

>>4445754
tapes

>>4445664
>>4445667
It's not worth it TO ME, I don't need to know anything about the details to say; if it cost more than x then I'm not interested.

i want a sony camera but sometimes want to use those fuji filters to get some tiktok pussy while it's a fad, is it possible to apply the same fuji filters like provia and classic chrome to my sony pics?

>>4445762
Just get a fashionable Fuji. If women see you with a Snoy that will be repulsed.

>>4445755
>tapes
wrong answer

>>4445778
CDs/DVDs are probably the cheapest and easiest to use without buying dedicated hardware. M-Disk also gets an honourable mention despite costing more, since it's actually archival grade.

>>4445762
There are a bazillion apps with different presets
Just fine one you like and apply it to every photo

>>4445768
>f women see you with a Snoy that will be repulsed.
this so much this
doubly more for leica or hasselblad
women love cheap trash cameras that look like shit

>>4445778
>>4445809
I have 800PB of pictures, how the fuck am I going to fit all of that on CD/DVDs? Tapes are best.

>>4445817
There was a fantastic thread on archiving that /ourjanny/ dutifully deleted. Had to make room for shilling wormjis.

>>4445754
>cheapskate option
2 high capacity HDDs in RAID1 + a weekly snapshot to a cloud server
>bit more expensive, bit more setup, much more versatile
NAS + as many high capacity HDDs as it can fit + a weekly snapshot to a cloud server

its probably not normal for my 50m to loudly hunt for focus like my other lenses or is it just because its a cheaper lens?

I'm a dogfucker. My hot wolfwife is a total slut for the BHC and embarrasses by propositioning me for sex in front of friends.

Which digishitter should I buy?

>>4445816
My wolfwife loves my leica. She likes the smell of the leatherette and how unintimidating it looks. Maybe you should stop dealing with dumb human bitches and take the dogpill.

>>4445919
Total huscuck death

>>4445817
How do you have so many picks? Arent tape readers thousands of dollars?

>>4445945
>>4445919
So easily baited I think youre samefagging.
If not then husky haters are proven incredibly low iq. Lol

>>4445919
Pentax 645 (the film one). Its the ultimate dog lover camera.

Sensor size overcompensation is for dogredditor furries
Small sensor chads are true weeaboo 4channer catfrens

>>4445967
Large sensor? More like liberal sucker
M43? More like MAGA 4th reich

>>4444523 (OP)
Just getting back into this as a hobby.

How should I take care of my camera bodies and lenses?

How do I learn like what an ISO is and all that F stuff on the camera? I'm an Auto hero atm.

Also i've got a a 500N and a 4000D and i want to take both out at the same time, should I use multiple cam bags or is there any better way of taking multiple cameras out in the field?

>>4446076
>all that F stuff
Lower f number=wider aperture, more light. Narrower field of focus. Close it down to get more in focus at the expense of needing to use a longer shutter speed or higher iso.
>How do I learn like what an ISO is
Basically your film speed, except you can change that at will on a digital camera. What you really want is a basic explanation of the exposure triangle so just search that. I can't really recommend any off the top of my head.

>>4446106
thankyou!

Is there a repository for custom firmwares? I heard there's an E-M5 II one that lets you use the focus stacking on *any* lens. The 60mm macro one has it out of the box but the 14-150mm one doesn't, only the PRO ones do and that's just horseshit.

>>4444611
Probably the 24-70 f4 if you aren't going to bolt on some bigger grip. 24-120 seems to be the "do everything" option, but I can't imagine using it with the Zf.

Since jannies are deleting my posts for seemingly no reason, I'll ask it here.
Is the Sony A7IV a good upgrade from the Canon RP or should I get an R6 mark II?

>>4446264
Depends on if you are already invested into RF lenses or not.

>>4446265
I don't own any RF lenses, but I got two EF lenses and an adapter.

>>4446266
In that case it won't really matter. If Sony has lenses you want then go with that. I think Z6 iii is newer, and similarly priced if you want an alternative. Just pick the system that has the lenses you need. EF adapts to just about anything.

>>4446264
R6II bakes RAWs between 50-800 ISO and does some fucky shit on the test charts as per something anon posted a few days ago. I would be mindful of that. If snoy looks more tempting than RF mount than go ahead. I think EF L lenses are absolutely worth it and I personally would be happy adapting those even with the lower theoretical optical sharpness. The RP is defintely starting to look dated though, so an R8 or R6(I/II) might be up your alley.

>>4446264
snoy cameras make people look like shrek
jannies are deleting your posts because snoy shilling is against the global rules

>>4446282
I'll trade it because I need speedy focus for paid portraits. I can't afford to lose "the shot" just because of a slightly out of focus pic at f/1.6.
Probably no one will buy my RP, so it will be my backup/hobby camera.

>>4446285
Do you mean it shifts green? Then I can just correct it in post, right?

>>4446285
>you can't talk about brand in the brand shilling general
holy kek maybe one leak wasn't enough

>>4446286
>Probably no one will buy my RP, so it will be my backup/hobby camera.
Never a bad idea to have a second body if you're doing paid work. Second hand RPs are cheap as shit though so don't expect much back if you bought it brand new.
>Do you mean it shifts green?
It does more than that, it's not as easy as just changing WB. Some models are more affected than others

>>4445736
>>4445740
Bump

>>4446307
Except if anyone does any coller correcting at all then you can't tell the difference between brands at all anymore

>>4446286
He is lying. Sony cameras do not make people look like shrek.

Canons do.

>>4446324
This is false. Lenses and sensor coverings filter color in unique ways and tech differences enhance or reduce the reproduction of color and tone. No one should buy a camera they dont like the colors from thinking they can fix it. It’s a fools errand that turns into a massive waste of time.

>>4446327
I rarely had issues with green skin.
I had once but the green leaves were reflecting the light, so it's up to the environment.

>>4446329
True that different cameras and lens be different
Still true no on here would be able to tell a brand based on the color of an edited photo, as has been demonstrated many times
Also true that all kinds of brands get used in all kinds of professional work

>>4446329
>It’s a fools errand that turns into a massive waste of time.
It's a fools errand to not learn how to process

>>4446336
What the best brand to be "recognized" as a competent professional?
Sadly that's how the world works, based on appearances.

>>4446338
I see professionals using most of the major brands across a wide variety of genres
I see every brand get shit on here constantly by nophotos

>>4446336
>you cant tell with MY photos so it doesnt matter for YOUR photos
Enough with this faggot brand simp bullshit, numale. A man lives not for others opinions. I, ME know that in my hands in the same situation a different camera would stick out. No one cares if YOU shot your ff like shit and your m43 in ideal conditions and spent hours on color correction. People care how cameras would differ for THEM 100%, and for 4channers looking at thumbnails playing guesso-brando 0%

Capisce, libtard?

>>4446339
>leave the multimillion dollar companies alone
Ah yes its /o/ now
>you cant call bmws unreliable shit they’re used in professional races >:(

>>4446339
Professionals use their cameras, break them, and get a brand new camera on the clients dime. If say, lumix has shit autofocus and a bad reliability track record they dont care because client money bought it, client money will repair it, its only used for studio work, and they have a sony a7c at home for "actual photography". and if they needed a camera out of the studio they’d make a client pay for the rental or purchase.

This does not apply to a person who isnt desperate enough to be a professional photographer. We’re buying one camera to use for everything here. Not buying one for the studio gear closet and renting to fill the gaps.

>>4446339
>I see every brand get shit on here constantly by nophotos
It's like rooting for a sports team, except you devote a heavy bias of effort to shit talking the other teams instead of supporting your own.

>>4446337
>It's a fools errand to not learn how to process
color correction is a useful skill to learn, not a skill you must make use of every time you want to publish/keep a photo because the camera's color reproduction is ass

>>4446337
and a greater fools to need to

>>4446350
professionals use a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 trip everywhere why dont you? if professionals so it it must be relevant to you.

fuji has bad autofocus for a high price? well a PROFESSIONAL used one for posed portraits so there! leave the multimillion dollar company alone!

>>4446350
Its products, not teams, so its more like calling out scams. The nips are slow to innovate, anti-consumer, and often collude with each other to keep prices high and upgrade frequent and minor.

>>4446339
Professionals where though? In Japan everyone serious uses a Sony. Because unlike the memes here in reality it's the only reliable brand of cameras that gives you exactly what you pay for.

>>4446354
Results between other FFs and APS-C
For like $2k
And then they break

Sony a7c mk1 for <$1100 is a deal tho

>>4446352
>professionals use sony so sony is good
>stop pointing out that they replace their cameras before the extended warranty is up and make it a tax write off

>>4446355
>And then they break
Again, this is a /p/ schizo meme. I have 4 different sony cameras. None have broken.
I have 3 FX3s and one a7rv that I bought to replace my old a7riii.
>for like $2k
Yeah, that economical. The only camera better for photography than an a7rv is a XD2 and it's $10k. Granted it's much better in build quality than Sony but it's premium.

>>4446357
>sony's breaking is a meme
It's a documented fact. Here's the latest
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1ehckii/a7cr_rubber_sealing_gasket_by_card_slot_begins_to/
Dont be too offended now snoyboy, canon has an equal share of problems.
Sony and canon have a noticeable failure rate, and unlike nikon, are very hesitant to issue recalls instead of keeping shit quiet and only fixing what people send in. They get away with this because they make their money off agency contracts and best buy/walmart tier cameras.

>>4446362
>a7cr
Yeah, their budget level cameras have quality issues. What do you expect? At that price range fuji and canon have even worse quality issues. If you're poor don't buy sony, unless a camera sells for $4000 new it'll be mediocre

>>4446365
>$2495
>"their budget level cameras have quality issues"
SNOY

The correct cope is some snoys rarely break

the a7c1, a7iv, and a7rv aren't really well known for breaking (but if you use the new shutter closed when off feature it raises the failure rate significantly, on any camera of any brand - because a paper thin mechanical unit that moves at 1/4000s-1/8000 cant be touched or accumulate more than 2 specs of dust). the a7c1 IS known for a batch of defective units with purple tinted screens. Sony fixed them in the warranty period but did not issue a recall. SNOY.

>>4446371
i have never heard of an a6600 or a6700 getting busted unless dropped or tossed in a pool

maybe people treat them better

>>4446370
>>4446371
Yeah, $2000-3000 is budget. If you want high build quality AND good image quality just get a Hasseblad X2D or Leica SL3. The main reason I like snoy is the a7rv is a good hybrid camera and they make the best full frame video cameras, I'm too poor to spend $30,000 on a cinema camera.

>>4446373
>30k are too much for him
that's just pocket change for me :)

>>4446373
Ironically hasselblad and leica cameras are some of the worst built things you can buy. Every single leica M and SL model has a laundry list of gotchas (bugs, typical failures, etc) and 30 pages of forum threads consisting of people bitching about their experience with repair services.

Hasselblad is even worse. On day ONE of the 907x coming out, everyone who got one had problems with the back and body maintaining a connection. Their other cameras are actually worse made and noticeably plasticky and rattly.

hasselblad as a brand has not really existed for a long time. in their dying years they were actually fujifims, down to the lenses, and then they died the rest of the way and china bought them.

>>4446377
its not a real rich persons toy unless you have to pay at least $2000 every 6 months to fix it, necessitating the purchase of a second one for when the first one is broken

things that actually work are for poor people

>>4446373
>If you want high build quality AND good image quality just get a product from [germans who got btfo'd thrice over by the japanese after ww2 due to their hubris and then got bought out by china or just sell their brand name to anyone aka the chinese to put on their smartphone cameras]

>>4446382
China is the greatest nation on Earth, ytboi

I got flamed on a facebook group for considering upgrading my camera.
They said I can take excellent photos with any camera, it's just skill issue.
I guess I'm keeping my Pentax Spotmatic F.

>>4446346
What do you mean mine? I use photos from other professionals using a variety of brand
No on can ever tell from looking at the photos
Why do actual professionals use a variety of brands instead of your pet one?
>>4446349
So you agree professionals do I fact use a variety of brands
>>4446351
Doesn't seem to be stopping all the professionals that do use a variety of brands, only seems to be an issue for people here

>>4446384
9 times out of 10, it is a skill issue

>>4446384
>They said I can take excellent photos with any camera, it's just skill issue.
that's why I only use an iphone 9 to take pics
does the job

>>4446394
Spending over 20 dollars on a camera makes you a true gearfag.

i tried watching a photography youtuber (rookie mistake, i know but bear with me), he had people send in their photos along with what their inspiration/what they want their photos to actually look like and most of the time his feedback is just "too much stuff going on, just crop it" and especially "there's no story being told here" / "this could be an interesting photo if only you took more photos of this subject" and i just don't understand it
does every photo need to tell a story? does every subject need a photoshoop? my immediate reaction was and still is "no lol" (the derisive kind of no lol)
did i pick the wrong hobby or something?

>>4446436
what's the video? I want to see if he's a retard

>>4446436
The whole "telling a story" thing is how streetfags justify forgettable snapshits like pic related that they later proceed to shill as masterpieces.

>>4446445
>>4446450
it was this video https://youtu.be/4a93MLBjszk
i got clickbaited while i was on the shitter, many such cases

>>4446459
just flipping around he says at 34:54 the landscape image lacks something occurring in the foreground..

god who listens to these morons? we really need to globally ban AV equipment for personal use, its just getting out of control

>>4446436
>does every photo need to tell a story?
i think visual mediums inherently are storytelling, regardless of intention. whethere that story is interesting or notable is up to the person creating. I don't mean having an attached paragraph to a photo, but like, you will get an impression and a feeling the moment you look at something, and i believe that can be crafted. But the way these youtube chuddies mean, by literally spelling out a story is retarded. may as well have just become a writer. its' the reddit /r/pics syndrome.

>>4446504
There's the immediate reaction, but there's also the delayed reaction after analyzing an image. I think there's merit in both.

>>4446436
My heuristic for if a photo is good or not is simply if I remember it (in a positive way) in a week, month, etc
Some photos just stick with me and pop back in my mind long after seeing it originally
There's nothing worse than a technically sound photo that is completely forgettable

I made a facebook advertising for a photo session for a reasonable price and above average samples of my work and about 10 to 20 indians are making fun of it and using the haha reaction.
I'm not pissed, just legit curious.

>>4446683
>reasonable price
in a western country?
indians were laughing because they think it's insane for someone to make more than 12 ruppes an hour

>>4446450
That's just him aping Walker Evans

>>4446683
6 million Indians are going online for the first time every minute. It's only going to get worse.

Does anybody have any experience shooting photos of homeless people or hobos? I want to take Bruce Gilden style portraits or maybe some scene shots like Boogie. How would I approach them without looking like i'm exploiting them or riling them up?

How would you fix this?

>>4447132
I don't know if they have chiropractors for ducks

Stupid question:
What the fuck is this guy talking about?
>>>/an/5015997
>>>/an/5015989

>>4447316
So far I think he said he has 3 cameras, and they have progressive levels of blurring, and that's it

How does this work? Is there a huge market for blurrier cameras? And why does his dog have green and purple dots on its forehead?

>>4447316
see >>4446496 for context
farm/dog/egg anon got picked on by a schizo and doesn't know to just stop responding

>>4447316
He is a fucking retard who picked photography up last year and now larps as a camera expert. He is excited about some shitty old sinar camera because he underpaid for a camera that used to be $60k. Today the $1k he paid was actually too much because it has the exact same image quality as cheaper cameras like the nikon d810 and nikon 5div, which were used by famous photographers like annie leibovitz and terry richardson to shoot for fashion magazines.

If you want to do photography just ignore everything he says and buy a normal camera like a nikon z6ii or a sony a7iii

Why don't cameras have anti-nigger technology inside of them?

>purchase expensive camera
>you can get robbed
>thief cam pawn it off or simply use it
This is so ridiculous.

The solution is so simple.
Allow (not force) users to password/key protect their camera and schedule authorization prompts. Failure to authorize yourself locks the device until the password/key/auth system is satisfied.
Methods of authorization could be a key sent from a smartphone, plugging it into an authorized PC running a program, or a simple password.

The fact that you can own a $4000 camera and someone can steal it and have unrestricted use of it is simply bullshit. As a result, camera gear is a common target of theft because thieves KNOW they'll get away with it and face no consequences.

>>4447364
You do make a good point, it's probably because they don't want to man a hotline where people call up asking for reset codes or some shit. There is a site where you can search to see if your stolen camera has been used to upload photos to the internet but most social media and even this shithole now strips that data so it's not as useful as it once was.

>>4447364
Just kill people if they try to steal shit from you retard.

>>4447364
This is why I stopped using expensive cameras

I was at a furry convention and some fucker tried to snatch my ZF (he had a gay little bitchmade knife and was trying to cut through the strap). I called him a zoophile and got away while he started trying to explain that just because he likes dog dicks, dog snouts, dog paws, dog tails, and dog fur does not mean he is a zoophile

>>4447364
Insurance is cheap, thats what adults use

how often should i replace my factory camera strap? going on 2 years now

>>4447426
that's what you get for not bringing your pentax

I havent started editing photos until recently but how come applying the same color balance on different photos in post can make the images look completely different in terms of white balance? For instance, something like 5600 will look ok on one photo but then on another it's like i have a fucking mexico filter on it. Is there a way to make things look more consistent and why is there such a big discrepancy?

I havent started editing photos until recently but how come applying the same white balance on different photos in post can make the images look completely different in terms of white balance? For instance, something like 5600 will look ok on one photo but then on another it's like i have a fucking mexico filter on it. Is there a way to make things look more consistent and why is there such a big discrepancy?

>>4447628
>>4447631
white balance is a compensation for the color of light the physical scene was shot under, which can be different photo to photo
actual light temp/color isn't the full story either, because you can have indirect lighting, which may be bouncing off something that changes its color

>>4447640
ohh that makes a lot of sense, thank you anon

sadly the noise thread got archived, so I guess I can ask here cause i dont know where else to ask: for you fellow c1 users, what the fuck do you use to denoise? Cause the built in denoise in c1 is absolute dogshit, and c1 doesn't play well at all with dxo pureraw (it fucks the ev and colors up) and these c1 cunts straight up don't want to bother fixing the dng issue

before I actually read the manuals, anyone know a good primer for using an off camera flash with a wireless trigger? video or text is fine
like actual technical settings for the most common use cases
(I read some of the strobist but it seems to be the actual opposite of what I want)

>>4445720
tl;dr: courier (bitch) slamdunked my 60mm olympus macro on the floor and called it a successful delivery (zero packing material, just the retail box in a slightly bigger box, international shipping center probably repackaged it)
how can i tell if it's broken? doesn't look like there's any external damage but i have a hunch lenses are more fragile on the inside than the outside

>>4445498
To conclude this post; I followed canon namefag's recommendation to buy a 6D and whatever lens that is (>>4445610).
I bought it from MPB and it was pretty fucked up, so I'm probably swapping it for a nicer one.
But the quality of the images is great, I don't know what you retards were on about comparing it to a phone.

Picrel is the first photo I took with it that isn't my living room, and it is 1000x better than my phone.
Feel free to say it's out of focus and under- or over exposed, idk, but I'm satisfied with it, for <€500.

>>4448278
it's both under and over exposed but not because of your camera you need an ND filter

What do you call a small metal piece that basically consists of two rounded nail heads? And can I still get decent quality ones today?

It's used to connect leather straps to older cameras, binoculars or the likes.

>>4448595
A double headed rivet?

>>4448598
No, not exactly. A double headed river would maybe work, but it would squeeze the leather. Plus the strap has two "key holes" that attaches to the metal piece - this makes it removeable. Chicago bolts could also work, but it's not the real thing and I want to keep it as original/authentic as possible.

>>4448595
>>4448609
They make strap rivets and they're of a length that when completely tightened down they won't crush the leather, the downside is that one side will have a slot in it.

>>4448609
no reason other than autism that you can't just use a snap rivet

Why has 70mm always on the long or short end of zooms (like 24-70 and 70-300), but 70mm primes are uncommon?

>>4449282
because it's too hard to make a reasonably sized 24-85mm

my dumbass bought a lens i havent used that much (Tamaron SD 11-16 f2.8 DX) i have no idea how to shoot with this since ive only used a 24mm focal length for years....how do you shoot with something this wide.

I'm using the f/4 14-150mm Olympus lens, and the live view exposure on my camera doesn't match the image taken when I view it
Is this a setting I missed or something?

>>4444523 (OP)
Not quite /p/, but at the same time is. Wasn't sure about asking here, the film thread since they encounter older gear more, or venturing over to /diy/.

I picked up a Yashica 635. Camera is in great shape, case not so much. (so the case arguably did its job at protecting the camera.)

Anything I can do about the case? I'm not expecting a full restoration without professional intervention. But is there something I can do so it's a bit less "crusty?"

>>4449559
it will look stretched going to the outer edges of the frame compared to the center when using the wider focal lengths (esp. 11mm or near) and will reflect on landscape, architecture (making small interiors look wider), portraiture (making arms or legs longer, or face gets distorted if framed near the edge).
mind the vertical lines if you're shooting architecture (indoor room or ourdoor facade) if you want them straight vertical.
if you want the face not to look distorted, shoot it in the center of the frame
if the lens has macro capability, you may shoot small objects but in a wide perspective.
just get creative with the lens.

>>4449665
looks like that used to be patent leather
if it was uncoated leather you could probably diy with some mink oil
but I'd recommend looking for a professional for that, doesn't look like it's really torn anywhere so might be more affordable than you'd think

I forgot to actually try out Affinity Photo 2 during the trial, would you say it's worth it?

>>4447654
anyone?

>shoot 1/500
>PIC STILL BLURRY FROM MOVING
This is BULLSHIT. How is this even possible?

>>4450361
you need at least 1/2000s to guarantee no motion blur, nothing can move faster than 1/2000s

>>4450361
>This is BULLSHIT. How is this even possible?
because you're not using a fool frame
>>4450368
using a m43 you could still get blur at 1/2000 because of physics

>>4450370
true, smaller sensor = things look like they're moving faster

>>4450368
It was me that was moving. I was taking a pic of a poster.

I bought a cheap CPL off Amazon and put it on a 180mm telephoto. It looks like shit.
Is this just what a crappy CPL looks like, or am I using it wrong? I've never used one on such a long focal length before.
Every photo looks like it's got directional blur (oriented to the CPL)

>>4450490
>Is this just what a crappy CPL looks like
yes
although honestly I've never seen a cheap filter quite that bad

I'm trying to fix the hot pixels on my D200 with this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu48PWUtzzI
but I get the error message:"[18002] Defect Dark Count Over Error". Does anyone know how to fix this?

>>4444523 (OP)
Should I get the Nigger Z5II or Nigger Z6III?

>>4451032
z6iii if you give a fuck about video, z5ii if you don't

This is probably really stupid question but - I was using Darktable 2.6 for quite long time but last time some people on /p/ told me to use newest version or switch to something else, claiming that (old) Darktable mess up colors and noise removal. But I'm honestly afraid of new one, which remove many old modules like even classic "brightness - contrast - saturation". Should I switch to new DT or use something else after all? Since I have Nikon camera, I tried their NX studio (from before they forced NikonID account) but both work much slower and don't really like it (except quite nicely working d-lighting setting). At the other hand, my old DT installation have own problems like it fails to detect my new lens, despite it being present on list and selecting lens each time manually, for every single photo, is little annoying.

Sorry for dumb question.

What’s a good cheap digital camera for goofy dog shit?

Let's say I have way more autism than I have light.
My shutter can only be open for so long at a time, and that isn't enough to photograph the subject at base ISO with proper exposure. I need to use ISO 1600, but this is noisy as fucking hell.

Assuming I have a tripod and the subject is stationary, how many exposures are needed to effectively get the same quality as if I shot it properly exposed at ISO 100?

How does the math work?
How many exposures do I need to stack per stop of underexposure?
Do I need something like 16 shots or is it more like 256 shots?
Will be merging RAW.

>>4444611

f 50mm f/2 K non-ai and ftz2 maybe

Has technology moved enough that you could now build a new 35mm film camera that has noticeably better autofocus and auto-exposure capabilities compared to the advanced cameras of the late film era? Like, could Nikon make an F7 if they wanted to.

>>4453123
there's no difference between SLRs and DSLRs for those functions, assuming you use OVF for the latter
so yes, think D850 but with film

Are those white dots on the lens dust or is the glass actually damaged?
Will this be too visible on the photos?

>>4453484
From a sale post?
Looks like the front of the lens barrel is dented near "asph."
Specks probably won't show up on wide shots, but may appear when zoomed in.

>>4453484
it might be dust but I doubt it, and if it is anyone who knows how to take care of a camera would clean it before trying to sell it so the rest of the camera is probably fucked too
and if it isn't this is literally worse damage than any of my cheap soviet era lenses
don't risk it

>>4453484
You don't normally see dust specs showing up in the photo but they do contribute to making the photos softer. I'd be concerned about that dent as well, it's obviously had a fair knock and there's a bit that can go wrong in those telescoping lenses. Unless it's cheap and (and, not or) you can look at it first and see test shots, I'd leave it.

What site do you fellas use for your Portfolios? SquareSpace, Wordpress, Wix...? I'm not gonna use Adobe's.

I like to goon to my camera content, but my system is nikon f-mount, which makes it pretty difficult

Sometimes Mrs. Northrup is in vidoes about this system, but for dedicatedly nikonian ladies pretty much all i've got is this androgynous individual:

https://www.youtube.com/@CourtneyVictoria

And this saucy temptress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYFbIzI7m3E

Why is it that videos about canon are like 10x more likely to feature a woman presenting ?