Thread 4474666

Snoybob Edition

Old thread autosaged. Dumb questions go here.

Anyway, I've already got one.

I want to stack some astro shots in sequator but I've run into a few things.
If I give sequator the RAWs it spits me out a TIFF, which Canon's DPP can't apply RAW corrections to. If I correct them first Sequator complains it works better with RAWs. What the fuck do I do, is there a way to brute force the corrections onto a TIFF?
Also because idk does a TIFF contain basically the same info as an interpolated RAW or am I losing out on something>?

>>4474667
You have to do the processing in the program like sequator. TIFF isn't RAW

>>4474667
>Also because idk does a TIFF contain basically the same info as an interpolated RAW or am I losing out on something>?

A TIFF is suppose to be an uncompressed JPEG, but most cameras add compression to them.

A RAW file is a conditioned version of the data that the sensor detects, and most cameras add compression to it too. But it is still more manipulable in post processing than JPEGs or TIFFs.

>>4474667
RAW corrections are applied in sequator internal raw converter

>>4474667
a RAW is like undeveloped film. you can run different developers on it.
a TIFF is like a developed film. you have the image data baked in. no other development possible.
what i'm trying to say it: raw converters get better over time. you can extract now way more useable data out of a 2007 RAW than you could in 2007. if you did that in 2007 and just kept the TIFF you would be locked in the 2007 data. no way to run the newest algorithms over your old RAW data.

Asked in a different thread
Any reason to use picture profiles or anything similar to it on a sony camera if all I do is RAW shooting? Or should I ask, is it detrimental to use them?

im retarded. everywhere i look about shutter speed, it's always a fraction. yet on the zf dial, its just numbers like 15, 8000 etc. is that meant to be 1/5?

>>4474763
Yes, 250 is 1/250, and that gets shown on the screen too
The red digits are full values though, it goes 1/2", 1", 2", 4", or you can use 1/3 step and control via one of the 2 normal dials

>>4474763

15 is 1/15 of a second

I just got into photography. I know zero and just wondering how to take (relatively) close up photos without getting a fisheye effect - currently sitting at my desk taking photos of my monitor and the top of the monitor appears to curve towards the edge of the photo area.
Is it just some inherent part of photos that they warp at the edges, or is there a setting I haven't gotten to yet that will compensate for that, or what?
I see that people suggest to move further away, then zoom in a bit to reduce it. Is that the only way to accommodate for it?
Got a Conan EOS 1500D (Rebel T7 in the US) if that matters.

>>4474904
What lens are you using? Any wide lens is going to have distortion, and zoom lenses will distort features which is why you avoid using them for portraits generally.
You will probably want a nifty fifty (50mm lens) because they most resemble the human eye.

>>4474910
Just using the lens that came with it.
>non-image-stabilized (non-IS) EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III lens

>>4474917
>>4474904
24mm and wider is what we'd call the UWA zone and those focal lengths here are going to have distortion. Even the pricey ones are going to have some, just less of it.
Digital corrections can mostly if not completely overcome this distortion, but the more it has to correct the more the corner details get smooshed around. Some lenses are better with this than others but your mediocre kit lens is likely garbage in comparison to some other lenses available.
Make sure "Distortion Correction" is enabled in your camera menus just in case.

But you just want to take close up photos. That doesn't need an UWA and generally shouldn't be using one for that anyway. You just want a lens with a relatively good magnification level. This is not always directly marketed on the lens unless the value is high, and we call those ones macro lenses. A true macro lens is 1x magnification which go google it if you care, but some other lenses have decent 0.5x or even 0.3x values and are passable enough. It depends on how big the thing is you're taking a photo of.
Longer focal lengths allow you to be further away from the thing but still get a close focus on it, which is why most true macro lenses are 100mm focal length.

Anyway. Buy an EF 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the IS version) for $300 and be done with it. It's a true 1x macro lens and is also two stops faster than your kit lens is at 55mm.

>>4474763
8000 is 8000 seconds. Very nice for long exposures.

>>4474904
>I know zero and just wondering how to take (relatively) close up photos without getting a fisheye effect

You need a telephoto lens.

Should I avoid (whenever possible) shooting at the widest aperture even in low light?
I noticed several lens reviews mentioning the widest apertures being quite weak (blurrier, full of color fringing and vignetting). For instance for my Sigma 30mm 1.4, it's often recommended to start with f/2 (not much can be done about barrel distortion though it seems). Is this universal?

>>4475363
it depends, you gotta use your own judgement depending on conditions and your particular gear. in some cases scene is so dark it won't be salvageable in post, so extra light gained from opening all the way is worth it. some lenses are so shit wide open your photo will be totally unusable and having more noise or faster shutter speed is prefferable. sometimes soft image, optical artifacrs and vignette in corners are quite useful if you're taking a portrait and don't care about the background and want to focus on the face in the center of the frame

>>4475363
The performance difference between wide open and 1 stop (or more) will be really lens dependent. Plenty of lenses are totally fine to use wide open, but there are plenty of reasons to stop down a bit for others.
Also consider that even though you're stopping down 1, you aren't necessarily losing 1 stop of light. One of my lenses vignettes so much wide open, but it cleans up so much 1 stop down, that it never feels like I'm missing out on exposure.

>>4474917
If you are using Canon, download DPP for free from Canon support and use the lens correction when fiddling with your raws. Using longer end of zoom and stepping back should minimize distortions.
For flat subject if camera is not perpendicular to surface (sensor / image plane is not parallel to surface) you'll get also perspective distortion. Which is an user issue.

>>4474760
what sort of picture profiles are you talking about? like something thats in the cameras menu, or something in lightroom etc..?

I am a visual artist (le amawu gril drawer), would this help supplement my skills or have carryover? I am thinking of adding it as a cheap method of making myself seem more of an artsy type to appeal to art hoes, but I would do it anyway regardless since I've picked up an interest in it. I had social experiences under MDMA recently that made me think "Huh, maybe I'm more attractive than I think" and so I wanna double down on the performative aspects of artistry, but also expand my skillset.

>>4474666 (OP)
Why do boomers love an ultrawide field of view?

>>4475469
Because bigger is better, duh. No replacement for displacement!

Sent from my iPhone

>>4474666 (OP)
why Nikon dslr images look so good compared to Nikon mirrorless? dslr have nicer colors and more pleasing sharpness, can an anon who used both dslr and mirrorless shed some light in this matter

After doing a bit of post editing and whatnot I've noticed something.
What the fuck is the difference between boosting or lowering gamma in post, versus raising the ISO at the time? I've seen the photons to phaggots chart, I have a rough idea that boosting your camera's ISO at certain levels ends up cleaner than the alternative, but after you get past that area, is it basically the same thing? If your camera is completely invariant is the really anything to gain from ISO vs gamma adjustments? I feel like i'm missing something since you can't seriously tell me that shooting at ISO 100 then raising the gamma 6EVs worth is going to look the same as shooting at ISO 6400

>>4475476
the gamma slider isnt the same thing as the exposure compensation slider, so no, it is not the same as using a different iso. using the exposure slider should be, in most cases, identical to boosting iso though.

>>4475477
Ah shit. Yeah now that you say it I said the wrong thing. But the question is basically the same then just with the exposure setting in post instead of gamma.
So excluding crushing blacks and torching highlights, it's bascially interchangable?

yup, the nikon (sony made lol) sensors are basically iso invariant. for example, on the zf/z6ii/z5ii and whatever else that uses the same sensor theres a small drop in read noise from 100 to around 640 because of the dual-gain setup. so using the cameras iso in that range can give you slightly cleaner shadows (as long as youre not clipping highlights ofc). after about 800 it doesnt really matter since its already in the higher conversion gain mode.
the difference in noise is tiny though, were talking a few electrons of read noise (8.3-5.2, whatever that means). just shoot the lowest iso that gives you a good exposure without killing your dynamic range either way

>>4475478
>>4475480
forgot to quote you lol

>>4475458
I mean built in picture profiles on a sony camera (a6500)
https://fstoppers.com/gear/proof-sony-picture-profiles-do-affect-raw-photo-files-345045
It seems there's something to it

>>4475486
literally watch the video. nothing changes for the raw files, except when you use a different gamma setting in camera, so, "any reason" is that you might emulate what the final image is gonna look like in your viewfinder with a profile, similiar to shooting a fuji recipe but developing the raf files

>>4475476
For digital, you should always tend towards using a lower ISO at capture + pushing in post.
You end up with the same result, but will be less likely to run into highlight clipping at capture. This is how Fuji's DR modes work too for example.
It's also one of the reasons I generally avoid auto ISO altogether. You should always be prioritizing shutter + aperture for maximizing your exposure before considering ISO, and any small changes in exposure are better left corrected for in post than via small changes in ISO at capture.
I basically only ever use whichever my dual stage ISO limits are, and then 6400/12800 at the extreme end as needed, since pushing that far from 640-800 is often worse.

what is dynamic range and what do people mean when they say a camera has good dynamic range? For a while I was mixing it up with hdr like on phones or tvs but now i have no idea wtf they mean

>>4475507
I use auto ISO in M mode but actively fiddle my EV comp dial while checking the histogram. Shutter speed and Aperture ETTR as much as possible without clipping. I'm gonna do some tests with pushing exposure soon and see what changes vs metering ooc.

>>4475706
It's measure of how wide a range from dark to light
Ever taken a picture and your foreground was fine, but sky was all white? Ever taken a pic indoors on a sunny day and everything out the window was just white? Ever accidently underexpose and be unable to get anything back from the shadows? Taken a picture of someone in a white shirt that ends up clipped? Better dynamic range can help with all of that.
A camera with bad dynamic range will lead to more clipped highlights and shadows with no recoverable details.

>>4475487
https://discuss.pixls.us/t/sony-picture-profile-affects-raw/41958/13
Well it doesn't seem to really matter all that much in the end.

>>4475717
Ohnononno snoysisters...

>>4475714
oh that makes a lot of sense, thanks anon

>>4475507
Excuse my retardation, I'm still getting started.
Should I really not use Auto ISO on Aperture Priority?
I noticed that it does work the way it's supposed to to an extent. The way I understand it, when increasing exposure compensation, the priority is to decrease shutter speed automatically, then ISO. When decreasing exposure comp., it's in reverse order, following minimum and maximum values for both (minimum shutter speed on Auto ISO setting, I'm using a sony camera, dunno if it's available in other cameras). Isn't this the right way?
As I understand it, once you need more exposure but you exhaust first the minimum SS limit, second the max ISO, it overrides the SS limit and starts dropping down the shutter speed further. Which I'm not sure is an amazing idea or intentional (maybe at that point you're just fucked or need to stabilize your camera, limits are limits for a reason). Do you think Auto ISO is really that unreliable that you should bother with manual ISO?

>>4475776
Auto ISO and Av mode together is basically P mode with control over your aperture instead of ISO. Some people like it, so who cares.
I personally think that (and P mode) is retarded, but you have the right idea with your explaination. The first problem I can think of is — oh wait, there's a neat photo scene but there's something moving in it, better hope my camera doesn't assume 1/30th is acceptable hue hue, better flick to M mode.

If you can't manage two settings at once (aperture and shutter speed in M+A-ISO mode) then you're ngmi. Same for Av mode.

>Do you think Auto ISO is really that unreliable that you should bother with manual ISO?
I've found on the ff and aps-c cameras I've used that Auto ISO has typically worked great. It relies on your metering method and accuracy, so there's bound ot be cameras that suck more than others. I once owned an Olympus that couldn't be trusted in get ISO right in the slightest, so I understand the pain of it not working right.

>>4475720
Gamma applying to raw is actually desirable

>>4475781
>If you can't manage two settings at once
I'm kinda doing that already with setting aperture and exposure compensation (bound to the wheel on this thing because fuck them buttons).
I guess the better idea would just be replacing exposure compensation on Av with shutter speed on manual mode?

Another not too unrelated thing that shows how fucking new at this I am. Just like I'm seeing some sort of parallel there, I'm seeing a parallel between zebras and the histogram. I'm getting annoyed by having to wait like 4 seconds until this fuckugly slider disappears (shutter speed, exposure compensation, aperture) so I can check what goes on on the histogram, but can't I just use zebras, which are always shown, as a replacement for that (provided they're set up accordingly)?

>>4475797
Nevermind the second thing I'm really fucking dumb. There is a setting that does disable that shitty slider (pic related). Exposure set guide. What the hell is this for? People can't read the numbers at the bottom?

>>4475776
>Auto ISO on Aperture Priority
Is arguably the best general purpose do-all automated mode, that most everyone could use and be fine for 95% of situations. I see enough of the marginal benefit from avoiding Auto ISO altogether though. If I'm letting ISO control for exposure, I'd rather just underexpose and do that control in post.
Not sure why your mentioning exposure compensation, that just shifts where the meter thinks is 0, it doesn't change behavior of auto ISO / SS. EC just says "instead of going ISO/SS up/down at X brightness, go up/down at Y brightness instead". The behavior stays the same.
>once you need more exposure but you exhaust first the minimum SS limit, second the max ISO
Depends on the camera. If you are in situations where you are frequently hitting the ISS or ISO limit, that is all the more reason to switch over to more manual control.
If you've ever unintentionally clipped your highlights, with an ISO above your cameras minimum, that's a prime example of Auto ISO screwing you over.
If you've ever shot a series in quick succession, but the cameras exposure varied (even slightly like 1/3 of a stop), that's an example of Auto ISO screwing you over.

Knowing what settings to use / how to expose an image the way you want, is the easiest part of photography. In many situations, you can go literally hours of shooting without ever needing to change your settings if set properly. Use whatever works best for you.

>>4475804
Yeah I can see Auto ISO being annoying in terms of overexposure. The camera can often think you want to hit the max ISO you set at all times. At the point at which you set the limits too narrow you might as well do manual ISO.
My intention was to automate one out of the three given I only have two "dials".

>>4474666 (OP)
So I was looking around and found a little Canon Powershot SX230 HS at a pawn shop for cheap, so I picked it up, and in looking up the prices on ebay, they go for $150-$200 for a near 15 year old point-and-shoot. I've picked up newer mirrorless bodies for cheaper than that.
Anyone know why these are going for so much? It seems unremarkable, but the going prices seem otherwise. The only thing I really notice about this compared to others is a better set of manual controls for a point-and-shoot.

How long until we get an AI Learn AF-mode? Where you can either teach it live or select exposures you've taken where the focus is perfect to train the camera that that is the type of subject you want it to lock on to? Is this feasible? How detailed is their process in making the AF modes we have now like eye, pet-eye, bird, car, train?

>>4476226
Never. Cameras are outdated and dying. You have more of a chance seeing that in the next iphone.

Is it even possible to take a good still life?

>>4476208
tiktok nostalgia meme probably, maybe the zoom range, but other than that yeah its just a point and shoot with your average compact sensor, I guess its starting to fall into the "vintage" category and the price is explained due to the fact that is not being produced anymore and there may be some schizos collecting these just for the sake of it

I like to take photos from time to time. I basically have close to 0 knowledge in phototography, but somehow I manage to get, by sheer luck, some (in my opinion) decent photos.

So, with these few exploitable pics that I took, I'd like to edit some of them with some software but I don't know why, every software that I tried so far showed me different results when I was just browsing the pictures

Some of them just modify the brightness automatically, others make the photos totally unwatchable, with some horrible multicolored pixels, and in the end I have absolutelly no idea what my photos really looks like.

I tried Rawtherapee (the worst, visually), Lightroom and darktable

You can see on the left I'm using Lightroom and on the right is the same photo using rawtherapee

So which one if the closest to the picture I actually took ? I'll also post the picture in itself below this post

>>4476289
Sorry to spam the thread with my photos but I'd like to share what it looks like using microsoft photos. I'm totally lost at this point

>>4476287
welcome to the hell that is raw files and default software settings - the issues youre describing are basically features.
some software applies noise reduction on import, some doesnt - thats the "horrible multicolored pixels" thing you see. lightroom by default applies a lot, rawtherapee obviously doesnt apply any.
some also apply different color profiles, thats why you see different brightness after the image actually loads in (what you see in camera and before the "change" is an empbedded jpeg preview. lightroom by default loads in its "adobe color", instead of the one you took the shot with
>So which one if the closest to the picture I actually took?
well, none. to get the exact same results you saw in camera you would have to use your cameras manufacturers software to develop the raw files, or develop the raws in camera, or shoot jpeg. for any other 3rd party software you would have to reset the profile to the camera one, match the other settings...
what camera are you shooting?

>>4476284
I mean, picked it up because i am a vintage digicam enjoyer, but god this thing is NOT nearly worth the $200 people ask for it imo. the manual controls ARE very nice for a point and shoot since you can control just about everything, but still, the photos it takes aren't campy like you get on old digitcams.
I wanted a sony U10 for the cute pocketable pocket snapper aspect, but tiktok made their prices go from $30 a piece to $150. I luckily only got mine for $25, but i'd kms if i paid $150+ for it.

>>4474666 (OP)
I'm trying to get back to photography. I did some when I was in university, but never went deep. I bought some Canon 500D and a 50mm lens.
I picked it up recently to take photos for me, landscapes etc. But the camera is damaged now, the autofocus doesn't work anymore and the flash is broken. It still works in most situations (manually and in daylight) but it's whacked. I probably won't be able to fix it, because of the price and rarity of the pieces.
I have two questions:
>1. does the autofocus issue come from the camera or the lens?
How can I check?
>2. I lost the 18-55mm lens, what should I do? I thought about:
Buy the lens for 65$ or directly buy a new camera, a 4000D for 300$.
I also plan to use it to make a little bit of money on weekends, weddings or modeling.

>>4476369
>or directly buy a new camera, a 4000D for 300$
That's basically Sony-tier ewaste, an used 600D makes more sense. Doubly so if you're going to be a heavy user. It could be argued such cameras should be illegal, they're basically made to be disposed of. The ecological concerns are not unlike those of fast fashion.

>>4476287
I know how to make the RawTherapee one look exactly like the Lightroom one
>last tab: look for hot pixel filter and turn it on
>second tab: turn on noise reduction; if you think it looks too grainy, turn on impulse noise reduction
Don’t fuck with the default settings. It’s a headache.

I just looked at the Lightroom pic again and if you follow my steps your photo will come out better in rawtherapee than with default import settings in Lightroom since it didn’t automatically filter the hot pixels.

>>4476373
Does lightroom fix color stretching or do I need a seperate program for that?

>>4476369
>I bought some Canon 500D and a 50mm lens.
Not a bad start.
>But the camera is damaged now
Chuck it. They're cheap and it's not worth fixing. You can get an upgrade on that body with a similar model for like $100-200 max and it won't be cooked.
Maybe keep it for parts or sell it on ebay as a part camera if the extra $50 you'll get for it is siginficant for you.
>1. does the autofocus issue come from the camera or the lens?
Depends. The AF motor in EF lenses like you have is in the lens. Most focus issues with EF lenses are the lenses' fault. HOWEVER the camera sensor and the CPU in the body are making the decisions when it comes to AF. It could be either without more info or testing. If you have another lens or plan to buy another one regardless, I would test with that.
>Buy the lens for 65$ or directly buy a new camera, a 4000D for 300$.
Avoid the four digit canons (4000D, 1100D etc.) They are e-waste. Foregoes the most basic of functionality in the pursuit of walmart-tier prices.
The 18-55mm kit lenses are under $100 used and you can get the nice IS STM version instead of whatever god forsaken micromotor version comes with most older Canons. As said before a nicer or equivalent body will cost you $100-200. So for $300 or less you can get an actual kit that'll set you for most photography needs.

>>4476369
Alright, I'll look the 600D, thanks.
I know nothing about the models to be honest. 4000D is bad? Why?
Does some anon have some qrd about the important models and their characteristics, or a site to understand this better?
Like why do 5D, 6D, 7D etc are better?

>>4476377
>color stretching
this infernal meme somehow refuses to die here i hate you all so much.

>>4476385
Yeah ok I'll try to get another one lended to try.
Alright, do you have some example of decent body I can buy used? >>4476372 said 600D.
Thanks.

>>4476389
Please help me. None of my pics look right

>>4476388
Better build quality, durability and weather sealing
Better image quality and autofocus capabilities
Better handling and ergonomics, larger viewfinder
Expanded feature-set and more advanced functionality / options

Basic cameras can still take great pictures, but better cameras will let you take them more consistently, more reliably, in more challenging environments and shooting situations
They will offer you more control and let you work more efficiently

>>4476402
Sounds like you've got a skill issue to work through.

>>4476403
Using my own memes against me

>>4476390
>example of decent body I can buy used?
600D, 650D, 700D all good options that are about the same. Don't go lower numbers, they're older.
Also consider the two digit canons that are still the same sensor size but are bigger cameras with more functions: 40D, 50D, 60D are decent, the 70D is the first in that line with a flippy screen which may or may not be of use to you and you can get a 70D for about $200-300.

But if you're going to pay $200-300 then I actually recommend a 5D II. The single digit canons are full frame which is going to be the biggest upgrade in image quality you can get per dollar. 5D mark I is a bit old but it's "film like" in its operation and output. The 5D Mark II is defintiely the most value:dollar ratio you can get on the used market period and will set you back around $300-400. The 5D II, III and IV are still used by pros these days and I absolutely recommend the Mark II version over anything else you'll buy, so long as you can be fucked carrying it around (it's like 2x the size of the 600D, 700D etc.).

tl;dr
>5DII (recommended) $300-400
>70D (APS-C recommended) $200-300
>600/650/700D $100-300

>>4476410
Thanks a lot for the detailed post, anon, really helps.
I hesitated taking a one digit honestly, because the full frame (if I understood correctly) tends to add more bokeh, which I'm not a big fan of. I understand the interest of bokeh when you make some urban portraits with light and shit in the background but I like nature landscapes for exemples, and I don't really want a blurrier background if there is a beautiful scenery for exemple.
Maybe I'm wrong and I can kill the blur with a wider lens… idk

>>4476417
example

I’m tired of digging thru Sonys menu to select black and white.

Is there a way to program a button on my a6400 for immediate black and white settings?

>>4476417
>I hesitated taking a one digit honestly, because the full frame (if I understood correctly) tends to add more bokeh, which I'm not a big fan of.
One thing to understand, which is a slightly more complicated idea but bare with me: smaller sensors do nothing a bigger sensor can do by default. The single thing a smaller sensor tends to win on is 'pixel density' which *can* be useful for certain things like macro and wildlife.
A full frame camera has more bokeh by default because its effective aperture is wider than an aps-c camera with the same lens. Let's assume a lens that has a max aperture of f/4.
To defeat this unwanted bokeh you simply... stop down. By f/6.3 you now have roughly the same depth of field (bokeh) as an APS-C sensor has at f/4. (I am ignoring other differences like focal length crop for this example, dw).

But if you want the extra bokeh, you can't widen your lens further than it can go, you simply need to buy a lens that can go even wider in aperture, which to achieve the look of full frame f/4 on APS-C, you need an f/2.5 lens. For the other end, where your aperture is very narrow, aps-c can get even narrower than full frame can because its effective aperture is about 1&1/3 stop narrower, but nobody and I mean nobody shooting FF or APS-C wants to shoot at f/45 or f/64. Your shots are just far too soft because of diffraction. Too many anons get this myth of APS-C vs FF wrong on the board.

Another thing to note: Wider angle focal lengths will have a greater DoF (less bokeh) than telephoto lenses due to how physics works. This is partially why landscape shots are normally done between 16-35mm. There are DoF calculators online that can give you examples but f/4 at 16mm has everything from like 1.2m to infinity in focus. But a 200mm lens at f/4 will have about 0.5m in focus max

Having that extra effective aperture over an APS-C camera is valuable for a lot of reasons, and you're not locking yourself out of anything the APS-C camera can do.

>>4476307
So I have a Nikon D60, and I'm mostly using this lens, AF-S DX VR Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm. I also have a 55-200


>>4476373
I'll try that thanks a lot. But is that a norma thing to do everytime ? Does every camera has some king of noise similar to the one on my photos ? Is it just a setting issue on my part ? I'm still new to this, is that a skill issue or a hardware issue ?
I have also like 2 pixels that seems to be on every other pictures if you can see them, like a green one and a red one

>>4476421
then you should check out NX studio. i am honestly not sure if they support their older cameras but its worth a try (youre gonna need to start a nikon account, but its free)
50:50 skill and hardware - the noise is directly corelated to higher ISO. if you want as little color noise as possible, shoot at the lowest iso your camera has. with the "starter" lenses that means longer shutter times, so you might wanna get a tripod. newer cameras generally perform better on higher ISOs. the 2 pixels are the "hot pixels" anon mentioned. they are stuck pixels on your sensor. modern cameras have a setting that remaps them, essentially resets them, not sure about the D60

>>4476419
Nm Figured it out.

>>4476426
Dunno about Nikon but Canons do have noticeable read noise at low ISO. Newer (canonikonsnoy?) cameras may bake in noise reduction on low ISO raws with no option to turn it off which buffs spec charts but may be an issue when stacking images for astro.

>>4476429
stop projecting your schizo brand issues

>>4476431
He's half right though.
New Canons bake in NR to 640/1250 (APS-C/FF)
iirc the NR isn't especially strong since people could still take astro photos without the sky disappearing (lol snoy skyeater)
In reality it really doesn't fucking matter since ISO 100 on my R8 looks about the same as anything

>>4476420
So nice, thank you, anon. Let's say I'm cloudanon. I hope there isn't already a cloudanon. Do you have a nickname? I'd be glad to talk again on this board.
Yeah, I'll look the announces and pick a single digit.

Give me a definition of a snapshot and of its opposite. Whatever that may be

>>4476417
>tends to add more bokeh,
It gives the opportunity for more bokeh, if you want, but you can shoot an FF as if it had he same bokeh capability as a smaller sensor camera
Full frame gives you more options, in lots of other ways to
>>4476287
They are all the closest to what you took, since they are the same file, just being interpreted in different ways, pick whichever program you like using, and actually learn to use it, and then you can have whatever look you want
The same problem with film too, different scanners will give you different outputs
You shouldn't care about getting it close to what you "actually took", you should care about getting it to look how you want
>>4476456
Good answer for /p/
>If someone I don't like took it, it's a snaphshot
>If someone I like took it, it's not
But arguing over definitions, like art, is always just a silly distraction to not actually focus on taking photos

>>4476456
My personal definition of a snapshit:
>A photo taken with little to no regard for subject matter, colours, lighting, or composition. This includes photos that may exhibit one or more of these elements, but was not included intentionally.
So, basically any photo taken with no thought put into it. You see the nice car, or you're at the birthday party, or a cool landmark and you press the button.
In a technical sense I would include sports photography and most wildlife as a snapshit, as you're really only concerned about getting the subject in frame. This is still a notch above the average snapshit though.

I will diverge and point out that snapshits are not inherently bad. A vital role that photographs play in the average person's life is to invoke the important events, moments, and people of the past, and the feelings associated with them. This is why I am happy to see snapshits on the board, despite insufferable faggots like >>4476471 >>4476475 proclaiming they're the death of it; snapshits still hold value even if we're more impressed by an intentionally framed and well executed shot of interesting subject matter.

>>4476482
Broad daylight wildlife photography you mean

Picking your lighting and season is it

>>4476429
Its a video thing. The sensor has to run faster and noisier for high framerate video.

FF ILC sales are starting to drop. The z5ii outsold the z6iii. More people are buying compacts. Japan is once again killing full frame, like they did when they collectively decided that what was once the standard imaging area for a semi compact camera should be exclusive to blobs that equaled medium and large format film cameras in size, and anyone who didnt like it could shoot 1" or smaller.

>>4476482
Snapshitters should have their own snapshit board. There would only be like 5 people left here though

>>4476544
You could make a couple generals with subject matter that would exclude most snapshitting, although there would only be like 1 or 3 people to ever post images to them. One idea would be a studio photography general or an off camera strobes general. Both of these exclude 99% of all snapshits, but also exclude 99% of all people posting on here, sadly.

>>4476486
>z5ii outsold the z6iii
This would be expected?

>>4476549
The idea that anything with lights is automatically more artistic is fallacious

Neither interference nor intent make a photo more artistic. Grading art as such just makes you more autistic. A flashed snapshit in a studio is still a snapshit. Fashion photography is 99% snapshits that the photographer barely deserves credit for.

>>4476565
Snapshits do not necessarily equal less artistic tard bro. Splatter painting can totally be artistic! CCTV camera footage can make beautiful stills worthy of large prints in a museum.

The opposite of snapping a shit is actually making a photograph. Using lights, set design, pose, understanding of composition etc to produce an image based on a vision you have. Painting with light, actually creating composition, form, emotion with whatever your subject is to then produce the image you want to create.

That is the difference between making a photograph instead of simply snapping a shit, and why I think a studio general would not have many snapshits posted.

>>4476571
Cinefag ass take

A snapshit is a bad photo that carries no meaning besides subject ID without the photographer or a critic/exhibitor rambling about it. High effort can still produce just a snapshit. a corporate headshot/product photo is a snapshit for example and most people working with lights just produce snapshits.

What you do and the degree of your intent doesn’t factor in to the quality. It’s like saying a hand carved dildo is greater than a 3d printed masterpiece of sculpture generated with AI and merely corrected by man.

>>4476573
>dildos and cinefag on the mind
>snapshit is anything I personally dislike

This board lacks drive, passion, and vision. No wonder everyone cums all over mirrorless cameras aka the ultimate snapshitting rig. Sad!

>>4476577
the dishonest non-retort of a dog lover

The snapshitter screams its art while photographing the back of your head.

>>4476581
It’s for an intentional project - "what i see when we’re at the bath house"

>>4476589
>Back snap shots, a street shitters perspective

>>4475474

my guess would be that dude that originally wrote library for some of the raw converters passed away 2018 ish and others have not yet quite catched up

>>4475474
Lenses. Nothing else.

Camera bodies do not do color. Lenses do. Even disparate cameras like the d200 and a7iii can be 100% matched by a colorist as long as they use the same lens. The old "inferior" lens coatings flared more and were less scientifically accurate but it looked better than this uncanny valley nikon ultra nano g master crystal coat L edition slop filtered through 14 elements in 8 groups for a fucking 50mm f1.8 S line L master G IS USM VII.

Look into a lens. See colored reflections? That colored light never makes it to the sensor.

>>4476630
>Camera bodies do not do color. Lenses do.
I swear this place gets more retarded everyday.

>>4476633
They don’t. Sorry if it hurts any ego you had tied up in brand wars. It’s just different profiles.

>>4476634
>what are CFAs
Never go full retard

>>4476634
The same lens on two different bodies will absolutely yield different colors

>>4476661
>uhm, bodies have different colors, because it says right here in lightroom they use two different profiles
the same lens on two different bodies with a calibrated profile for each will yield the same colors

if you spent over a thousand dollars on a toy and only know how to use the best buy demo mode (aka jpeg) and the defaults adobe gives you, maybe you shouldn't be buying professional tools to consoom around like a fujislug. if you shoot jpeg you dont even care about peak image quality so why not be a fujislug like you were always meant to be?

"i have to buy the new model because there are different film sims on it. all the cameras have their own unique color science so they cant use the new film sims, fuji told me so!" -fujislugs
"pass. i just changed the exif and opened it in capture one and it was the same as the new one." -maturing fujislugs
"i don't care about brands. i have a colorchecker." -fujislugs no longer

>>4476746
Wrong

Also, why would you need calibrated profiles for each if they aren't different?
It sounds like you're saying bodies are different, but can be edited to be the same, which I mostly would agree with (not exact same, but close enough)

>>4476746
Correct

>>4476748
>the supplied profiles are different and need to be replaced with corrected ones first? SO THE BODIES ARE DIFFERENT
No, the initial calibration is different for each body, and each raw converter, even if the sensor literally does not change. It’s marketing. Not immutable tech. Sensors are monochrome devices and the way bayer works, color is made up.

>>4476746
The color checker thing has been tried numerous times and Fuji's simply can't get Canon colors, lel. You hoisted your own petard.

>>4476765
Copying someone elses calibration without their targets and illuminants is a bit harder than making a standard profile, yes

Cobalt image manages fine with their more extensive color expertise and with enough test kit and knowledge you could do it too.

Body color science is not real as gearfags understand it. Color is an arbitrary choice made by the profile used to convert raws. The only thing that can’t be fixed is degrees of colorblindness under peaky artificial light but as seen by SMI rankings having no correlation with gearfags color science schizophrenia, it doesn’t actually matter.

>>4476765
you NEED canons lenses to get canons colors

sensors do not throw away entire wavelengths with as much zeal as lens coatings. sensor differences are extremely minor in reality and most people who talk about ccd cmos strong weak CFA schizobabble dont actually know what they’re talking about.
lenses are sets of band stop and band pass filters. missing light can not be calibrated in.

>>4476765
Why would they want to
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EMfCDujQywY

>snoy color science sucks
>ACkShuAlLy CoLoR ScIeNcE IsNt ReAL!!!
This cope will never not be funny

>>4476771
Hahahahaha

>>4476813
Pick one of these.
>"color science" is not real. raw files do not contain color. only lenses really matter. anyone can get the colors they want by making a preset out of an edit. if you can't figure this out, spending thousands on full frame mirrorless might not be for you.
OR
>actually, canon and nikon color are shit for colorblind rockwell tier boomers. sony and fujifilm have the best color.
I recommend you pick #2 and become a raving fuji fanboy and just ignore sony, because otherwise you will have to admit sony is good (two out of five mirrorless cameras sold are sony, one out of two for full frame). /p/'s userbase is heading towards the single digits and the chances of you convincing anyone not to buy a sony is dropping to zero. The last guy to try to shill against sony here convinced 3 or 4 people to buy a sony and then leave because he was too retarded.

Most people like you (you're all the same, very NPC like) already switched to being fuji fanboys. They realized they were losing at the facts game, and didn't really have the photo game at all, so they went with fuji for the feels game and gained the ability to pretend to be a photographer without taking photos (other than of their camera). Take this advice or leave it, but if you follow it you might actually get somewhere with your autistic brand crusade and convince a grand total of 2 autistic zach-tier retards to buy an xm5.

what the FUCK is color science

>>4476859
The science behind color, and to a lesser extent colour stretching.

>>4476859
It’s a marketing term that refers to jpeg and video with baked in color profiles. It doesn’t apply to raw. Raw files can use any color profile.

Gearfags are actual idiots and got this wrong.

>>4476854
>essay schizo malding and larping

>>4476764
>color is made up.
Yes, and it gets made up differently depending on the body used
>>4476769
> Color is an arbitrary choice made by the profile used to convert raws.
Which are different
>>4476873
>Raw files can use any color profile.
But that doesn't mean they'll look exactly the same lol

Again, you're just saying they end up the same if you calibrating 100% accurately to be the same which is both useless in practice and tautological

>>4476859
How the camera sensor interprets the scene its being fed. Different brands have different color science. Even different bodies in the same brand can have different color sciences (eg Sony changes its color science every now and then but can still never get it aesthetically pleasing). But most brands have it fairly consistent nos because theyve got it right from their legacy photography days.

>>4476901
>camera sensor interprets the scene its being fed.
but shouldn't it be an objective data encoding process and nothing more until you go into the editing phase with your color grading? how is there room for interpretation?

>>4476903
You can make your own raw converter if you wanted to try. :D

>>4476901
No, its how the camera software interprets the sensor data into a jpeg or video. Don’t be retarded.

One out of two FF mirrorless is sony and consumer sony bodies from the fx line keep getting used in hollywood and for netflix originals so clearly it’s a you problem.

>>4476903
It is largely objective excepting NR and lossy compression on older cameras and canons. Raw files don’t contain color. CFAs have a very minor effect that can be calibrated out. Noticeable differences are exclusively caused by the lens filtering out light. The raw doesnt have any color, just photon counts, but you cant calibrate in a photon that never hit the sensor. That is lens color cast.

>>4476915
>colors are the same after you calibrate them
>bodie dont have color science
Pick one

>profiles
subjectively speaking, which would you go with?

>>4476965
>the camera body is what made lightrooms default profile!
no you’re just too incompetent to use anything but

color science is so fake and gay, fuji worms/zombie skin and snoy green skin are exclusive to lightroom

>>4476974
Top left or bottom right. About even between the two.
In the spirit of the game I'm guessing top right is a Nikon D700

>>4476976
The same raw from a Nikon body, just with different profiles applied
these are four other different profiles (kinda about the same this time?)

>>4476978
Gonna go with top left again. The bottom left and top right look a bit too blue, but that's probably just the different WB. The bottom right I can't put my finger on but doesn't seem as pleasant as the top right; it's warm and balanced. TR looks like I'm walking down the path myself.

I've now got some vacation photos up on iStock/Getty Images. Is it worth it to apply for exclusivity or should I get my stuff on as many platforms as possible? If the latter, what other stock image sites should I be on?

>>4476901
>camera sensor interprets the scene
Digital image sensors are monochrome
Color reconstruction happens in software (demosaicing)

>>4477151
>Digital image sensors are monochrome
True, but that doesn't mean they're all the exact same or "interpret" exactly the same
>color variance isn't real because you can just calibrate
What a useless point to keep bringing up

>>4477163
>sony and canon supply two different profiles
>lightroom provides special profiles to imitate these
>IT IS THE CAMERA THAT DIFFERS NOT THR .ICC FILE!
No, retard. Camera bodies do not do color science in raw. You don’t know how they work.

Take the L and realize your brand war only applies to 8 bit non-log video and jpeg (who tf buys $$$$ of FF photo gear for that? you probably cant even tell FF from APSC without zooming in)

>>4477163
A raw file does not contain color. It says how many photons hit each r/g/b square and includes stuff like the idle noise of masked off pixels on the edge, pdaf gaps, apaf/dpaf splits, etc. it’s not a photo. It’s a bunch of numbers that if used as a photo without supplying an .icc profile would be a speckled monochrome checkerboard surrounded by a thin mostly black border.

Lenses can certainly change the final result but sensors are minor. The people who believe in raw color science are the people who would sooner buy a new camera than an $80 cobalt image clone preset pack. Retards.

>bought nikon d200
>realize it has a bunch of hot pixels
>too late to return
Do I just shoot RAW from now on? This is my first camera and I saw people say it's better to do JPG on it.

>>4477597
Hot pixels gonna be there regardless m8. You can map the hot pixels on many newer cameras, or just take what's called a "dark" frame and use post-processing to edit them out which is painless as long as you remember to take the damn thing.
Are the hot pixels ALWAYS there or is it just in dark / night time shots? Or maybe they manifest after the sensor gets hot? All are possible, but what's smartest to do depends on what is causing them.

>>4477168
>A raw file does not contain color
Not sure why you bring this up, nothing I said disagrees with that, you're right a RAW file is just numbers
You're the one that thinks the numbers are always the exact same for every brand and model
Stop shilling Cobalt on here
I agree color is malleable and you can make stuff look like whatever you want, but that doesn't mean RAW files are identical like you say it does
>>4477167
No one is bringing up profiles except you lol

>>4477600
From what I can see with the few daylight shots I have saved, the bulk of them are only visible in dark shots. I do have a few indoor ones where the same red pixel is always visible in the center.
I'll look into taking a dark frame. Also I think I'll just start shooting RAW. IIRC I was able to get rid of the hot pixels in darktable when I tried a few months ago but that requires RAW.

wheres the /p/ archive
i wanna see brooklyn beckham threads

>>4477610
>From what I can see with the few daylight shots I have saved, the bulk of them are only visible in dark shots.
This is normal-ish. Cameras straight out of the factory do this but typically it's after the sensors start to get some heat in them, and ofc the dark colours in a night shot will accentuate the hot pixels. Dark frames are your friend.
>IIRC I was able to get rid of the hot pixels in darktable when I tried a few months ago but that requires RAW
Most photo software has a hot pixel cleanup tool that either takes your dark frame for the data, or allows you to spot them out.

Don't fret anon, the camera will serve you well.

How am I supposed to focus when using autofocus?

Obviously with people eye autofocus is fine but if there's one inanimate object what's the best way of quickly snapping onto it and not done random car or whatever moving

>>4478099
Lock on tracking AF. Put the focus point over your subject, let the tracking lock on, then recompose

Anyone with any experience with any M42 to EF adaptors? I have a 5dmk2 and an old slr Canon and want to try to adapt some old manual focus lenses. Any recommendations?

I checked two supposedly 30s exposures on an EOS 6D but one of the EXIF values seem to show 32s for both pictures.

What does this mean? Is the 32s the measured exposure time and 30s just the requested? And how the hell is it off by two whole seconds?

>>4478126
I've been using a Helios 44-2 with the M42 mount on an EF camera. Not sure what adapter I got, but it was quite cheap, about 10 euros. The adapter is very basic without any electronics so pretty much whatever should do.

>>4478099
>>4478112
Alternatively, try to predict where the subject will move to, and prefocus at that spot, then shoot once the object is there.

>>4478131
Well it's working in full stop increments, which is a doubling of the time the shutter is open. If you start from 1 second then it's 2, 4, 8, 16, then 32. Whether that's some programming limitation of you camera or a deliberate choice for simplicities sake I don't know. However, in practice it's not actually going to make any difference.

>>4474666 (OP)
Why do you guys put up with tripfags?

>>4474666 (OP)
Do I really need a hot shoe cover?

>>4478131
Difference between 30s and 32s at that time interval is about 8% of a stop of light. Not really worth delving into the nuts and bolts over it.

But yes, camera shutters are not perfect systems and there's often some discrepancy between stated speed and given. There's a program to test it, can't remember name.

>>4474666 (OP)
Do you guys ever get suicidal from photography? Or do you feel like your artform will never take off?
Because I'm a failed writer, I was going to commit suicide. But I decided that writing is gay anyway and picked up photography instead. Now I want to get really good at photography and hope I'll never want to commit suicide again.

>>4478745
Write your will before you drop off your gearfagging stage

>>4478747
I'm not a gearfag yet. I have a 15 year old DSLR that is horrible but my photography tutor at school says I take very good photographs with an eye for pre-production.

>>4478752
Then there is hope for you yet young one. You can buy better gear, that's not what a gearfag is. But if the DSLR is doing you justice and you don't want for more, then all you really want is a better lens or whatever.

Am I supposed to be in aperture mode for average everyday shooting?

How do I do macro without a special macro lens?

>>4478902
Get a tube and put your lens backwards on the end of it then tape it up to your camera.

Longer tube = more magnification.

>>4478900
P mode for no brain photography
Av mode for good light
M mode with Auto ISO for bad light
Make use of exposure comp and lock
>>4478902
Extension tubes or a Raynox 250. I vote the former but it depends on what lenses you already have.

>>4477597

your pic does not look too bad

what's the absolute strongest but smallest flash i can put on a konica hexar

So exif data being gone is permanent or what?

>>4479236
Yes. Nobody running 4chan knows how to code properly so no change it'll return. Their bandaid was to just outright disable entire modules and plugins so god knows if any of them speak English and aren't ESL.

Anybody using the ReVanced Google Photos app to pretend to be a Pixel 1 and get unlimited photo storage? Or is it too much of a risk?

>>4477597
I'm pretty sure lightroom has camera-matching raw processor profiles for any body from the major camera brands

Really stupid question here
How concerned should I be about switching lenses in the middle of the street?
I see a lot of people carrying 2 or multiple lenses around and being practically new to this, I'm wondering how people so skillfully do it without getting dust or whatever the fuck in there.

>>4479548
Use basic common sense. If theres high wind or construction going on then avoid or duck into some cover.
But as long as you hold the camera sensor facing down you should be okay. Could always carry a blower in your pocket.

>>4474666 (OP)
How do you guys get your jpgs down to postable sizes? My camera's generated jpgs are around 10 mb but the edited raw jpgs I output are closer to 20 mb. I don't know shit about file compression.

Are these just exaggerated instagram filters or shot on film (with perhaps some exaggeration in editing?)

Is printing large just as bad as pixel peeping? Or is that we all know you aren't going to make a 70 inch print of that, but you'll judge a picture's quality like you are.

Shutter priority mode is ideal for people who don’t want to fiddle with aperture, where time is limited, is that correct?

>>4479619
I resize them then export at 100%
1920px on the long edge is enough

>>4480013
If you print a 100" wide photo and stare at it from 2' away it's not pixel peeping it's being a blind retard.
The people zooming in on others' photos 400% then bitching are being autisitc faggots, but if you do it to your own stuff because of the level you hold yourself to then that's acceptable even if it might be misguided.

>>4480038
I would argue the reverse. Av mode where you don't fiddle with shutter is the right way to go for minimum effort while still having control.
You want to control your DoF (otherwise just use P mode) but as long as you're above the shutter speed to stop motion you generally dgaf if it's 1/125 or 1/8000.

>>4480038
Yes, but these days it's isually better to just go auto-ISO in (M)anual mode, since modern sensors can handle quite high ISO values.

>>4480044
>125
You need to be st at least 250 to stop normal human motion.

>>4480104
>Yes, but these days it's isually better to just go auto-ISO in (M)anual mode, since modern sensors can handle quite high ISO values.
While I prefer that setting there's a good amount of dumbfucks like me trying to cheap out on cameras by buying used and old.
For instance my camera can do 12800 with considerable but still usable noise. But I wouldn't push it past that. I wouldn't try to keep it as low either, as I got very fucking disappointed that a certain set of somewhat low light pictures I took recently didn't have enough noise, and the artificial shit just won't do it. So there is some value in having some noise. Also the reason why I do autoISO is because I can't bother with how it decides in Av mode that lowering shutter speed past the limit is more important than increasing ISO past the limit (at that point I'd really need to set max ISO to the "barely usable before it all goes to shit" setting).

Should I get into film photography if I'm poor?

>>4480325
No, get a 5D II. If you can't afford that then save up, even if you were to go with a cheaper film body assuming you actually took photos it wouldn't take you very long to equal the cost. If you were thinking of going manual focus then get a first gen Sony A7.

>>4480325
You can get vintage lenses too if need be to save on money. Although APS-C is better for vintage lenses than Full Frame.

>>4480325
Yes, start with large format, you're just going to end up there anyway. Get a big wooden 8x10 camera and carry it around on your shoulder and do street photography. It'll be so rad.

>>4480349
Extremely based. I would also suggest to use flash powder and a really fast petzval for that sweet sweet f.05 DoF bokayy.

>>4474666 (OP)
I’m looking for a small video camera that isn’t fish eye that’s ohone-like but not a phone. Any ideas?

>>4480367
PowerShot TX-1

>>4480372
Thanks, but that doesn’t look cool enough

>>4480373
You're a fag this shit is kino

Anyone make plans to end it all? I'm approaching that

>>4480376
Never kill yourself anon
Or if you do at least take out some faggot politicians and CEOs

>>4480375
That looks ugly to me and I don’t want to point it at cute girls

>>4480382
Like I said you're a fag with shit taste and this even has peer reviewed studies confirming it
Just get an X100V because you don't actually care about photography, you care about displaying you're a "le artsy type" to white women

>>4480384
Why can’t i have a good video camera that doesn’t look ugly, that one fails on both counts. The best looking one is unobtrusive.

It matters how you feel with a camera, I’m not an autist and my subjects aren’t either.


It is you who has shit taste, that camera is disgusting looking

>>4480391
Just get an X100V after your next dilation

>>4480367
Check your local Craigslist/Kijiji every day, you might find a good deal for a full-hd camcorder since they aren't in the same demand as digishits. I got my night vision Sony handycam with all accessories for 40 leaf bucks two years ago.
>>4480384
LOL he doesn't even need to spend a kidney on an X100V, just a rounded compact camera that is any colour except black. Of all my cameras, my white Kodak point-and-shoot manages to get the most attention when I take it out. Last time was walking in the city with it in my hand, random college girl sees it and goes "ooooooo".

>>4480367
Consider the Arri BL 4. I think you and the ladies will like it quite a bit.

>>4480367
>phone-like
In what way? Imagine quality? Form factor? Features? Why can't you just use a phone?

>>4480417
Form factor, I have a dumb phone. I like the Instax360 4 but it’s fish eye

So my 500N arrived and I've got it loaded with some Kentmere 400. I'm keen to go out and shoot but before I do, I want to make sure this isn't a dud.
The viewfinder is blurry despite my lenses being fine and the AF system working properly. Even going MF I can never quite get a sharp picture. The camera doesn't look damaged (or even used, really) so I'm guessing it's the lack of diopter?

I wear glasses and my DSLR has a built in diopter that I basically always have cranked to -1. If I set the DSLR to 0 it's blurry.
Obviously this means I just need to buy a -1 diopter attatchment right? Like, what are the odds the mirror box is out of whack or whatever?
I only ask since I used to have another EOS SLR years ago (that I never really used and sold) but it didn't have a diopter lens and no internal adjustment but was perfectly sharp to look through.

>>4480434
I've just noticed something else actually. If I angle my view to look through the outside perimeter of the viewfinder it looks sharper than looking dead center.
The focusing screen looks like it has a rectangle of different material in the center portion of the mirror. Is my focusing screen just fucked?

>>4480377
Id never hurt someone.

>>4480467
CEOs and politicians aren't people though

Which V-speed rating do I want on my SDXC UHS-II card for 4K60?
Is it as easy as taking the maximum recording bitrate, divide by 8, and round up to the next V-speed rating?

>>4480647
>for Canon R8
V60 for the dw faghettaboutdit / 10-bit log
UHS Class 3 for 8-bit (i.e. not log)

I personally would just get a V60 card. You don't need V90 until you're doing insane shit like 4k120 or 8k60. V30 theoretically could be enough for 4k60 but I wouldn't cheap out on the extra $20 it would take to get a V60 card when I just spent several thousand on the body.

The math iirc is correct as long as they're measuring bitrate in KB not Kb (I've seen materials use both).