Dresden edition

what would be the best camera to take "street" portraits, with little to no editing? one with great skin tones and which has at least an 85mm and 135mm equivalent lens in its ecosystem?

all suggestions are welcome, as long as it's a digital camera.

>>4450601
Canon RP

>>4450601
>one with great skin tones
look no further than a sony, my friend!

>>4450601
Sounds like a really low bar, pretty much any digital sold today will manage if you know how to set it up. If you want it out of the box with good tones then I guess Canon.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3trM4ji_qfw

>>4450614
Actually it's an editing video kek, but almost any camera has color balance settings for its jpegs. Set those up and you're golden.

>>4450601
Nikon z30 is what you need champ

>>4450591 (OP)
>A camera from the time when they called 127 format small instead of medium like the same sized digital sensors of today get called

>>4450731
yeah, just remember than 35mm was considered miniature.
wild

>>4450732
>FF were the real sensorlets all along

Would Mechahitler use an Exakta?

>>4450733

i hate being so limited with money man, choosing my first (and for a year at least) only lens is so panful. idk what the fuck i want or need

>>4450761
Just debtmaxxx, what’s the worst they can do, ruin your (((credit score)))?

>>4450731
8x10 is real full frame.

>>4450743
ideas communicated with alt right memes are typically completely incorrect

>>4450794
Taking obvious shitposts seriously is a sign of autism, as is being an unironic leftist.

>>4450601
Anything desu, Fuji is the best and most fun to use though if that;s important to you.

>>4450601
fuji and sony make the best and funnest cameras for photography, but nikon makes the manliest in case you're afraid of coming off as a bit metro (or aren't a bit metro and prefer a manlier experience)

>>4450826
Sony jpegs

>>4450601
Sony cameras are free, just go to a furry convention and grab one. They don't put the serial number in the EXIF so you can't get caught by posting pics from it online.

>>4450828
>this is what passes for a reaction image in india, circa 2025

>poop had a meltdown last night in the gear thread and I missed it

>>4450601
If you want a cheap, lightweight walking around camera with good jpegs I'd suggest a used Olympus Micro Four Thirds.
If you are doing everything in the daylight it doesn't really matter which, if you have some money to spend get the E-M1 Mk1 or Mk2 and some nice glass depending on budget. They are better experiences than they have any right to be and even the weather-sealed telephoto are light enough to carry around with a wiimote-esque wrist strap.
That or just ignore the above advice and go for the cheapest 00s DSLR you can find, if such things still exist in the double digit range these days due to CCD hype memery.

>>4450794
i refuse to believe somebody who's such a stick in the mud is a photographer

Should I go R8 or R6 mark II? They take the same pictrures

>>4450859
he's a camera operator

https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/gfx100s-ii-fine-art-x-bryan-minear/
What are the implications of GFX shooters faking the mars landing?

>>4450858
>That or just ignore the above advice and go for the cheapest 00s DSLR you can find, if such things still exist in the double digit range these days due to CCD hype memery.

i can still find d200s, k10ds, and km 5ds for <$100 so yeah. the d200s being more difficult because of boomers who think because they paid $3000 for it in 2007 means its still worth $300

i second the olympus m43 or nikon d200 suggestion, olympus if you have $500-800 nikon if you have $200~. the em1 mk2s go for $4-600 from a quick glance just body only.

>>4450705
if the z30 is anything like my z50 9/10 times i found myself using the canon 5d mk2 preset in nxstudio for my files which is embarassing because at that point i would've just bought a canon 5d if i wanted canon 5d colors

actually on that note consider the 5d classic/5d mk2 and the 7d mk2 sibling, you can find 7ds for <$300 nowadays. always look local whenever shopping for canonikon since they're available cheaply and you can lowball people who dont wanna ship shit on ebay

>>4450858
Ha, don't. I use that crop shit for macro and macro alone, which is just curiosity snapshits. On anything you can see normally IRL it looks uncanny because you can see how it looks, you remember how it looks, and then micro four thirds turns it into some kind of vibrant plastic.

>>4450601
A film one. The old olympus OM SLRs can use a real good, small, cheap 135mm f2.8, the g-zuiko 50mm f1.4 has very good rendering, and zuiko 85mm f2 has soul.
https://omexperience.wordpress.com/lenses/zuiko-85mm-f2/
https://28mmf2.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/the-sony-a7r-and-a-zuiko-85mm-f2/
It being film also makes people significantly more open because digital cameras are for creeps.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285553222287
Bros I'm going insane what the FUCK does Canon AF mount mean? I heard online that Canon didn't let third parties put EF on their lenses but I don't know for sure and don't want to buy a paperweight if it doesn't fit on this T6i

>>4450912
That's a poor quality brand engineered old Sigma from Ritz Camera. You'll likely be unable to stop it down (it gives error 99 and shuts the camera off if you try). Those work fine with early 90s Canon SLRs. Back in the day you could send them to Sigma service for a rechipping, no longer the case. They don't even work with the EOS 50.

>>4450888
Damn, for once they do something right.

>>4450888
These photos are pretty amazing. Whenever I see work by pros it always looks a little special compared to stuff here or on other websites. Like it's cleaner. Is it just photoshop usage?

>>4450931
Purposeful color grading instead of editing for "reality but as nice looking as i remembered it"
Status signaling tricks like shooting environmental stuff with super long focal lengths
low ISOs on high end cameras
retouching to determine the amount of detail in each image instead of buying soft and sharp lenses

>>4450794
Go back to /pol/.

>>4450894
I know it's a troll post, but talking about cheap lenses while ignoring the gaping black hole that is buying and developing film is just retarded

>>4450976
Just snapshit less and git gud bro

>>4450976
just shot foma and self develop lmao

>>4450601
>what would be the best camera to take "street" portraits, with little to no editing? one with great skin tones
Literally anything except a Sony.

>>4450988
You spam the same image because it’s one fake review from a panasonic shill. Obvious bad white balance settings.

>>4450731
What was the film grain like back then?

is it worth upgrading my 7d2 to an EOS R? i dont really wanna pay more money for lenses but having better low light performance would be nice

>>4450601
>135mm
are you trying to take *across the street* portraits?? just get the biggest sensor your budget allows in whatever body you're comfortable carrying around in the place you plan to be and slap a fast 50 on it

>>4450859
If you've ever been to a photography group / meetup / market you'll realise there are so many mudstuck sticks that it looks like a boardwalk over the swamp. Everyone wears le vintage carhartt jacket and beanies. They dress like animated youtuber avatars. None of them are worth talking to unless you want tips of taking pictures of cameras.

>>4450601
if you're normal looking get a 24 and a full frame body.

if you're a pedophile get a nikon d3100 and a 70-300 lens.

>>4451089
>if you're a pedophile get a nikon
Or a well-adjusted detective with a chocolate daddy complex

>>4451102
Ok but was Dexter really pro Nikon, or was he just using department issued tools which he probably rightly inept despised?

I ordered some gear from the US and genuinely wtf is wrong with you cunts postal service. It's been like a month and it still hasn't left the US. It's been to eight (8) different states, most of which follow a non-linear path.

>>4451000
"street" with quotations means they're not studio portraits, it doesn't mean I'm shooting strangers

>>4451102
>>4451111
The show literally got paid to sponsor Nikkon lmao
Niggon is desperate always has been

>>4450601
OM3 or fuji 40mp if your that lazy. If you want something that weighs as much as medium format, a Nikon Zf

When is Nikon going to release a FF rangefinder style body already?

>>4450995
For what, dog pics? Yes

.>>4451204
Only Leica can sell rangefinders, it's a status symbol. Plus, Nikon is green.

>>4450860
I have an R6 II and I felt the need to immediately get a second battery. Got a grip when they went on fire sale during BILD and now it's like a baby R3 :3
I know the R8 doesn't have IBIS but I can't imagine trying to use a diet R6 II with a T6i battery.
Extra dial is nice too. Primary reason I got the R6 II initially.
No I don't do video faggotry either.

>>4451204
Honestly would be cool, but it would be an investment for them to develop a modern rangefinder mechanism and integrating it with the Z mount. I guess it would have to have no mechanical linkage from the body to the lens and just have it be an electronic "experience".

>>4450860
Currently having the same argument with myself.
>IBIS, Dual card slots, better ergos, more controls, RATE (topkek) button, weird spinny fuckin back control dial, Biggur EVF, 2.2x battery capacity, fully mech shutter R6-2
OR
>Lighter, smaller, cheaper R8
Now, it's a bit of a meme on /p/ but lighter and smaller are genuine niceties, paired with the fact that you save a couple hundred bucks that go towards a lens that isn't some f/7.1, forced correction joke. I've got some old EF 'BEEG WHITES' and the 200g diference between bodies would be noticable not just for total weight, but also weight balance.
>>4451215
Lack of a D-Pad where the dial is, is a primary concern of mine if I were to pull the trigger on one. Tell me, is the shutter button actually too far forward for smol hands such as mein and is the DoF preview button at the front actually of any use?

R6II is in my cart right now, I just don't know if I'd want to wait the two-three years for an R8II to appear.

>>4451204
Probably never. They have a retro crop and FF. It might be interesting to build something off of the z30 but I doubt they'll do it

>>4451263
I solved my gear dilemmas by switching to nikon

The z7ii’s AF is not great but its a well made non-sony 45mp and the AF still beats the shit out of fuji

>>4451263
>Dual card slots
i now know not to care for anything you might have to say or opine on about cameras. this is the biggest snapshitter meme "need" ever.

>>4451270
Never said it was a big deal, Chuddy. That's literally a difference between it and the R8.
Nobody sneeds anything more than their phone, friendo.

>>4451263
Not sure. I have exceedingly average sized hands. Here they are holding it at what I would call a normal orientation. As you can see my pointer finger extends well past the shutter. I guess the problem if you have small hands would be getting around the outside of the grip than anything. I guess try it out.
I have zero problems with the ergonomics personally.

I have never used a camera with a dial until I got the R6 II. I don't understand why a D pad in the middle is needed. There are so many mappable buttons and dials on this thing (especially when you have a control ring) plus 3 storable modes that it's such a non-problem. If you want a D-pad, the little joystick works as one in the menus. You can use it also to move the focus point around, though the touchscreen works better for that.

Actually, getting thinking about it, yeah, no I would be less happy if there was a D pad on the wheel. Letting it just be the wheel lets me be a bit imprecise with my thumb-aim. I use the touch screen (not viewing through the screen, my eye is up to the viewfinder and the screen is off but you can still use it almost like a touchpad on a laptop to move the focus point) to move the focus point around if it's needed. Though the autofocus is so goddamn good that there is basically no need to tell it what to focus on.

>>4451284
>same keyboard bro
Thanks anon. I think I'm just going to quit being a bitch and buy the damn thing. It's on sale now for less than used ones are going on ebay where I'm at (which is retarded but wygd) so if I don't like it I'm only out a few hundred bucks at most.

>>4451284
dirty deskpad sisters fucking rise UP! the p17 doesn't mean anything just what i had handy at the desk presently.

>>4451286
I snagged mine right before the tariffs hit for pretty cheap. Its a lovely camera.
>>4451287
I almost took another pic near my gear shelf because I lurk /g/ most of the time and they're a bunch of pansies about dirty desk pads. I'd make the excuse that I just cleaned a bunch of goop off my mom's old Sigma >>4451224 but that's only part of the truth. The real truth is I do things at my desk in front of the internet and I simply don't bother cleaning my desk pad but very seldom. Ain't got time for that shit.

>>4451265
>I solved my gear dilemmas by switching to nikon
Many such cases.

If Nikon Z get a really good, native performance EF adapter, canon's probably going to sue. They'd lose half the hobbyist market except for the poor souls who already memed themselves into $2000+ of RF L lenses.

>why yes- I am shooting pictures of one of my friends just standing there in Brooklyn bridge park, how did you know?

>>4451204
The same day they fucking produce a Nikonos Z.
>No VF, just big rear display.
>3 Big tactile knobs for simplified operation
>Waterproof, to 600 feet
>all controls wirelessly transmit to inside body
>machined from solid block of aluminum
>FF Square sensor for full image circle capture & angle/crop in post, bc no stable tripods, levels or horizons when underwater

Fucking never, bc new Nikon is run by american investors that don't know, understand, or give a fuck about any of the things that Nikon ever did that made people love them.

Looking for my first film camera and I have my eyes on this bad boy. Is it any good for taking pictures? Or is it more useful as an extra pair of weights?

When will we get fiber optic sensors?

>>4450860
If you don't already have canon lenses, why lock yourself into a system without third-party lens support?

>>4451321
Rangefinders require regular maintenance by pros, which can be hard to come by. Find a recently CLA'd SLR instead.

>>4450601
Pentax K1000, MX, or Leica (digital or film). These are your only good options for street portraits. Anything else is trash.
Seriously, though, with no editing:
Sigma, Pentax, Fujifilm have the best "creative" color modes available.
Canon and Nikon have good color modes for portraits, landscapes, and standard, their "creative" colors suck.
All of Sony's colors suck.

>>4451326
>third party lens support
I won't pretend Canon make a flawless set of lesnes for RF but if a primary of yours concern is 3rd party then it sounds like you're just poor.

>>4451326
you only need 2 or three lenses. This shit about a mount having a gorillion lenses is not relevant

>>4451333
20, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 24-105.
These are the lenses any self respecting photographer has.

>>4451338
wrong, if your system doesn't have 31, 43, 77, then it's trash.

>third party lens support
Sorry, im not a poor snoyboy that relies on 3rd party brands to make good lenses because the first party lenses are trash!

>>4451339
Jokes on you the real focal length is almost never what's painted on the barrel
>stealth 50mm user

>>4451342
joke's on poors, who can't afford lenses that don't change focal length with focus

>>4451309
>Nikonos Z
Would likely end up the same way as the Nikonos RS. There's also less need for it now because you would have to buy new WR Z lenses, whereas the obvious solution is to buy a housing for whatever camera and lenses you have.

I'm downgrading to the X-T2. The weight difference is inperceptible and the EVF is twice the size. I also save about £400
Feels good, man.

>>4451370
Furthermore, two card slots, weather sealing (useless for me as I have no WR lenses), an ISO dial and MADE IN JAPAN.
Spoiler, the Fuji takes better pictures. Never buy L mount, lids.

>>4451344
I'm pretty sure he was not talking about focus breathing.
>>4451376
A fool and his money are soon parted.

>>4451383
A whole £350 for the X-T2. I will never financially recover from this.

>>4451384
The advantages of L-mount? Priceless

>>4451384
>£
What is it with retarded swamp specimen angloids and crop sensor copes? If it's not fooj-e-waste it's nikon entry level DSLRs.

>>4451385
I only bought the S5ii to flip. got it with two lenses for £1300 and sold for £1750 selling seperately.

>>4451387
I live in a walkable city which means a smaller camera is preferable. Testing the X-T2 with the 35mm f1.4 against the S5ii with 50mm f1.8 confirmed that APSC is plenty and much smaller.

>>4451387
Why do you make do with full frame when medium format exists?

>>4451394
35mm is the industry standard whether you like it or not. Medium format is merely a market offering for people who bought into full frame and still can't get results.

>>4451393
An a7 is the same size as an xt2. A7c is even smaller.

>>4451396
I know I had one. EVF is shit and the jpegs were trash.

>>4451397
All jpegs are trash

>>4451396
Sony cameras are for nerds who enjoy editing more than shooting.

>>4451401
>Sony cameras are for nerds who enjoy editing more than shooting.
Yeah I know that's why I recommended them to a fuji shooter.

>>4451398
You've never shot a Fuji, have you? You actually dont need to edit every one of your images to fix the shit color science, thats just a Sony issue.

>>4451403
Wdym? The colors of sony jpegs are more accurate and better. If I wanted oversaturated warm jpegs I'd get ChatGPT to bake them

>>4451403
>i need to further lower the quality of my mushy ass iphone xtrans sensor

>>4451404
>The colors of sony jpegs are more accurate and better
gm saaaar!

>>4451404
>NO FUN ALLOWED

>>4451397
>Why is that f/2.5 prime lens so big?

>>4451408
Because it's full frame. It's one of the most compact lenses in its class and was recommended to me right here in /gear/. It was overly sharp and had zero character. Why have full frame when you get f2.5 if you want an actual (semi) compact lens?
APSC is superior for this.

Same DOP, better EVF, 100 grams lighter, looks far better and nicer images.
Fuji wins.

>>4451413
Do Sony thin making the top plate 2/3s of the thickness of the camera makes the camera slimmer?

>>4451406
>>4451407
They could be better, I prefer the colors on Leica and Hasselblad jpegs, but I'd rather have my pictures look the way my eyes saw them than look like a fascimile of color film to appease boomers

>>4451321
I had one back in high school like 20 years ago. The beauty of it it’s so simply constructed that you could probably tear it down and cla yourself in a weekend (if you enjoy that sort of thing. If that doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, I’d pass. If you’re going to pay a serviced camera premium there aree much better ones for just as cheap. But it is a capable little thing, the lens has that characteristic vintage glow (Inb4 seething about “it’s not real”) and the thing is basically bombproof. Wouldn’t be my first choice if you aren’t used to RF and old camera quirks already though, unless it’s dirt cheap. I wonder if my folks still have my old negatives from it lol, may have to check when I head back home for Christmas.

>>4451413
I went from A7II to T2 back in the day

>>4451413
>Its da same!
Equivalence doesn't include ISO. Sony has greater photon well capacity, higher real resolution, and no xtrans worms. The files are more flexible and render better above instagram sizes.
>Better EVF
If all you do is look at the camera
>100g
This is not perceptible to men.

Fuji is one of the few brands that is just worse than sony. The others are olympus (way worse autofocus, worse menus, worse colors, worse reliability, WAY worse image quality) and panasonic (extremely unreliable, autofocus doesnt even work). With competition like that, who needs to make good cameras?

>>4451408
Because sony packed it with useless videographer shit
>aperture ring
Bloat
>click/declick switch and infinitely variable aperture
Bloat
>the styling
Bloat
>Overly fast autofocus motor for a lens its size
Extreme bloat. It's like they pulled a reverse fuji GFX (fuji puts the slowest, noisiest motors in some of their $3000 GFX lenses lol)

Shooting fuji is how gearfags openly and constantly admit they are gearfags. They're just here for the cameras and the instagram clout.

Sony users do at least pretend to be photographers, but we all know that if they're not renting a flagship for work and shooting nikon/leica at home they're new at this.

>>4451438
>>4451436
The FDS begins

This is also part of the boards culture problem for any onlookers

>>4451438
I shoot sony at home and rent an x2d 100c
sony jest werks

>>4451441
Fuji just doesnt make good cameras. If you broke their market share down by model it would be 2/3s x100 and entry level cameras. Their attempts at "high end" cameras with the x-t/x-h probably don't sell. Only gearfags are stupid enough to pay $2000 for an aps-c kit that underperforms micro four thirds since they get so caught up in brand wars and "color science and rendering" schizophrenia that only a gearfag could make a decision like that.

>>4451448
You are so right, I have never heard that on this board ever
How genius are you to notice that and speak up, when no one else ever has before
You should copy that so you can paste it down the road in case anyone else forgets

>>4451448
Not even, it would be like 90% instead, and THEN everything else lol. People always forget about instax here, like /v/ snoyboys always forget Sonys primarily a banking and insurance company lol

>>4451448
Correct. The xt5 is the worst piece of shit ive used and returned. There is no reason for that rattly, blurry pic toy to cost more than a full frame nikon Z. And fujislugs are cancer, like the opposite of cANON they believe bullshit so they can like fuji instead of so they can always hate it.

>>4451453
I've had them all and came back to Fuji.
But I don't do any editing as it's boring.

>>4451469

>buy a pentax k50 PINK
>photography is fun again
I just fucking hope the thing doesn't die on me

>>4451473
>PEAK SOVL

>>4451469
When you think about it, fuji is just leica for poor people.

It's kind of like how real musicians just go to the store and buy a mexican fender with a comfy neck and a line6/boss multi-effects that can plug into a PA, and "guitar hobbyists" build a pedalboard and pay out the ass for a vintage gibson.

So if you're a "thing hobbyist" instead of a "artist who uses thing", a fuji is actually the most reasonable purchase, because your other option is a leica or a real film camera.

>>4451520
>more FDS

>>4451525
>referring to TDS, when trump later turned out to be a pedo in israel's pocket
i still voted for him because normies were doing a bad job at noticing how many politicians are aipac pedos and kamala would have kept up the sovietesque denials of the biden admin tho

are we going to find out epstein preferred fujifilm?

>>4451530
>i am crazy
yes

>>4451531
sorry i forgot this is 4chan and you guys actually like pedos

>>4451534
trump isn't a pedo he said he would never fuck anybody under 13

>>4451469
same
but i also enjoy editing too

>>4451408
Buy a Canon of Nikon if you want smaller faster FF primes.

>>4451634
>smaller faster FF
>canon or Nikon
Step aside plebs, the king is coming through

is it better to start with simple jpgs instead of raw? can good editing be made out of jps if necessary?

>>4451637
>throw away all semblance of optical quality
>now it's small
many such cases on m mount

>>4451645
Despite what the autistic screeching here would have you believe, most modern cameras can out out a perfectly decent and usable jpg, so long as your exposure is correct. But there isn’t much editing room for correction with them. If you’re just starting Jpgs are fine to get the basics down, then maybe you can consider raws if you want further refinement. If you’re learning a camera and the also learning editing, which are two different things, you might start to conflate the two if anything seems off

>>4451645
no. shooting raw makes even the shittiest camera feel like professional equipment and decouples as much of image quality from the camera as possible.

>>4451650

so essentialy editing a jpg is just putting something over a photo, while with raw you can change the photo - i have some room for error when taking them?. sorry im not even starting yet

>>4451650
Feel free to ignore this guy. It's shooting jpeg that makes people believe phones can perform on par with ILCs. The sharpening and NR engines in these things just aren't good enough and the older the camera is, the worse it gets. The higher the ISO, the more jpegs issues show.

Fuji in particular goes from iphone quality to normal ILC quality just by opening raws in capture one instead of shooting jpeg.

>>4451654
Shooting jpeg is pre-editing in camera with one of the least competent raw processors on earth unless you unironically spent $2k+ on your camera.

White balance, "DRO", etc have to be controlled before the shot and it's a massive waste of time and an actual downgrade from the workflow of shooting film, with added frustration from cameras rear screens tending towards inaccuracy because they're meant to impress best buy window shoppers and every proper repeat customer already shoots raw so companies don't care.

>>4451655
>>4451652
Right on cue. The photos are not good enough for pixel peeping turbo speeds but for normal folks they’re totally fine

>>4451657
>STOP NOTICING THINGS! Having aesthetic standards is for AUTISTIC NERDS!
And you spent how much money on cameras to still hold this retarded position?

>>4451645
Shoot RAW+JPG and just worry about the JPG's for now
RAW can give you more editing options down the road if it's something you'd even be interested in doing
On the chance you do enjoy RAW's or your JPG profile tastes change, it's nice to be able to go back and adjust it to your newer taste or skill

>>4451657
for "normal folks" (or, as the jews call them, cattle) a sony a7rv and an iphone 16 pro take the exact same picture once they're sent through imessage or instagram

if you are shooting jpeg you should be shooting phone. it's like buying a sports car, and never engaging in motorsports because point A to point B is fine for "normal folks" (as if that's something to be proud of lol)

>>4451660
>it's like buying a sports car, and never engaging in motorsports because point A to point B is fine for "normal folks"
This is usually a consumerist thing but you see it associated with more insecure "passion" and anger on 4chan because every other person here was bullied in school for being a nerd.

>>4451659

i had no idea you could have both at the same time, guess that solves it. maybe tomorrow i finally unbox the camera lol, why is this shit so intimidating

>>4451666
The nice thing about digital is you can basically just blast away infinitely until it starts to make sense. Imagine only having 24 chances to get it right lel

>>4451637

>>4451645
Start with JPGs of course. You dont need to spend hours editing your photos on a computer because your camera is incompetent (unless you bought a Sony or something)? Go outside and have fun taking photos.

>>4451666
Yeah I only suggest +RAW because I know I have stuff I shot JPG only from years ago that I wish I could go back and edit differently

>>4451678
>Hours to edit
Leave the continuous high setting alone, digislug.

>>4451685
I just post directly to instagram from my phone
it just works, I post millions of pictures every year, mostly of blurry out of focus shots of the city

>>4451678
Editing just takes a couple clicks now

>>4451654
look at what I was able to accomplish with an optimally captured exposure and RAW processing that could not possibly be improved upon

>>4451698
lmaoing at the mexico filter

>>4451698
the only problem with left is that the red's are underexposed
right looks bad

>>4451675
Anon none of those are 50/0.95s what do they have to do with anything

note that this is an OBJECTIVE improvement
the tonality and contrast of the natural colored landscape that's blueish because of the clouds contrasts with the bright red gate
Would making the sun rays more pronounced make it better? Yeah but that would have required having the raw which you did not provide

>>4451703
>Anon none of those are 50/0.95s
shit nigga, just lean against something why do you need that shit. A 2.0 is perfectly serviceable even in low light.

>inb4 muh bokeh
just shoot medium format lmao

>>4451702
well, it couldn't possibly be any better captured or any better edited, so it really is just a limitation of the gear used, but thats okay because im buying a better camera soon

>>4451709
you're going to need to spend at least $10,000
Everyone knows you start being able to make truly good pictures when you spend at least $20,000 on a camera and $60,000 on lighting

>>4451699
its not a filter, the files are colorless and presets don't work because it's Canon so i have to edit from zero

>boomer millennials still edit all their photos on a computer
ok unc

>>4451718
Zoomers and gen alpha are literally so dumb their premature dementia rates are projected to collapse the healthcare system - if they get any healthcare at all, that is.

having a blast with this shitter

>>4451745
Mju bro.
They're so expensive for what they are. I'd never buy one at Ebay prices but I got this one that was sitting in a box at my parents' house. I gotta test it out but it seems to function as much as I can test without film.

The battery door latch is also broken so it's currently being held together with electrical tape.