>>4308015
>the "vacuum cleaner trick" - cut out the bottom of a 0,5l bottle and put it over the extended lense. Then suck away.
how to exponentially increase static charge and attract more dust to an area, one simple trick.

so im on crop right now and thinking of upgrading to FF. my question is, is it really an upgrade when going from crop to full frame but losing MP? in this case i was thinking of lumix s5iix, so from 26 to 24. the issue with lumix is lack of lenses i guess compared to like sony. or maybe i should just burn money on the sony and sigma lenses

>>4308136
forgot to mention that i would like to get into plane (specifically fighter jets) photography and movie making. i think higher mp would be good for plane pics

>>4308136
>>4308139
If your crop body is otherwise adequate then stick with it for the planes. It has the pixel density of a 60mp full frame body, so unless you're going to pony up for that or a lens that's 1.5x times as long as what you're using now then you'll be losing out.

File: unnamed_file_from_www.nhp(...).png (1.37 MB, 880x1184)

1.37 MB PNG

I'm a non-/p/ guy so bear with me. I honestly love disposable cameras, and I have three questions.
1) What gives this such an artistic and painterly feel?
2) Are there higher quality cameras that provide the same impression?
3) Is there some kinda site where you can easily search through these types of photos?

>>4308186
Flash and a shitty plastic lens

why isnt there a mount standard? so single mount for ff, crop, etc.? that would mean production of the lenses wouldn't be as expensive since they're all the same and potentially more money since people wouldn't be locked up in one "ecosystem"?

>>4308225
Because each manufacturer thinks they're doing it best, and they don't want others using their mount and taking away their sales. For example Canon has always had some really great lenses but their bodies haven't been the best, if EF was a universal mount then far fewer people would have bought Canon bodies. Similar with their mirrorless stuff they've been reluctant to let third parties use their RF mount because they know their lenses are overpriced and they would make less money from lens sales.

File: FOM_fMzXMAAwmpp.jpg (51 KB, 720x652)

51 KB JPG

What's some usable, free (as in beer), offline windows print layout software? In darktable on linux, I just set paper size, type, desired border size and it just werks. On windows, DT doesn't support printing and in gimp it's broken. I tried 3 canon printing programs: the pro one doesn't work, and the other two are so bad that they don't even allow me to set border size. Nikon NX studio partially works, but it only allows to set border size in whole % points and doesn't properly center the image for various reasons. The only software that actually works is IrfanView - the automatic centering doesn't work, but if I enter the image dimensions and offsets, it does what I want. Any advice?

>>4308225
there are some shared standards like m43 and l-mount
most brands want to keep customers on their system, using their brand cameras and their brand lenses

>>4308225
Because saving you money and opening up the candy store to gearfag kiddos would likely completely wreck what few tiny camera departments are still operating. Lens mount competition is one of the few things keeping this niche market profitable. In its beginning and in its future it's going to be niche, just pro/artist gear, the compact/PNS normie camera era is over.

And in that context these are very, very durable goods that do not go truly out of date for over a decade unless they were built to be shit on purpose (like micro four thirds, you'll always buy a new one because they all suck). ie: 5DIII+EF L glass still excels in a professional setting. It's from 2012. People still use EF L glass on RF bodies.

With so few reasons to buy from the company the company really depends on not giving you a reason to buy from another one or else their imaging department is going to go the way of a fujifilm. No real new tech, just repackaged snoy with a gimmick thrown on top and constant product line cuts and quality drops.

>>4308294
m43 also had one out of two companies drop out of the market entirely and panasonic has essentially abandoned it

L mount only works on
>cameras nobody uses unless they are an amateur videographer who can't afford an fx3 yet (panasonic)
>cameras nobody uses period (sigma)
>cameras maybe 5 people use because of their brand ambassador relationship with leica and dislike of soifinders (leica SL)

File: blue filter.jpg (167 KB, 2048x1244)

167 KB JPG

Do color filters not work on digital cameras? I got a blue one to try it for black and white but it doesn't seem to do much. The image will obviously get a blue tint unless I adjust the white balance for it and so on, but regardless of whether I do or not there doesn't seem to be any meaningful difference in the contrast in the scenes I've tried it on compared to shooting without a filter. Just a hue change from the messed up white balance. I think my filter might be on the weaker side but seeing no change at all seems strange to me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1244

>>4308323
you only need color filters if you're using a monochrome camera like a M10M, K-3 Monochrome, Q monochrome, etc. Otherwise everything you can do with color filters you can do with black and white conversion in post.

>>4308325
I know you can edit the contrast in pictures, that has nothing to do with my question. Changing the value relationships in the captured image isn't the same thing as filtering wavelengths of light.

>>4308327
Digital cameras already have color filters. You're not doing anything except making the colors less accurate.

And yes editing is the same, you're reducing the brightness of select red wavelengths or whatever either way.

I've bought a Canon M6 Mark 2 two years ago and, fot telephoto lenses, I've been using the ef-s 55-250mm with an adapter. Lately, this set is failing to focus and I have to restart the camera to work again. Been thinking about buying a EF-M 55-200mm. Does it worth to lose 50mm in focal lenght in exchange of being a native lenses for the camera?

>>4308400
it sounds like the focus motor is dying, and another copy of the same lens would work fine. just buy it with a return policy in case it's actually the electronics in your adapter failing and both do the same thing.

Where can I see some well taken examples of what an AA filter does to the image without it being some faggot youtuber, with YouTube compression, no RAWs, and handheld shots of moving subjects or stuff?

I'm looking for the ultra nit picky result difference for purposes of like film scanning, document capture in copy stand, etc. Not some idiot missing focus by a few mm in some telephoto example and attributing the blurred image to the AA filter.

>>4308506
I can not fathom what usage of a "AA filter" would ever, ever have. What would you use it for?

>>4308506
Most OLPFs do literally fucking nothing and I think canon's are mostly to aid the DPAF system

When cameras were lower resolution and OLPFs were stronger it sorta mattered, but between a d800e and a d800 you can't really tell most of the time and cameras have only gotten higher resolution since then

do nikon and canon have black friday sales?

>>4308365
why are you so poor you cant even afford soviet glass? why can you not get a job neet? why can you not get a wife incel?

File: 1714403798732709.webm (2.32 MB, 578x720)

2.32 MB WEBM

what the fuck is this thing

File: 1711994730063374.webm (2.96 MB, 790x444)

2.96 MB WEBM

I have a D3500 and 4 flashpoint lights, what are some ways to monetize and make a living off of this?

I have done product photography
I'm doing ebay sales
Considering Portrait photography (opinion on this?)
Is there money in film scanning for other people?
I don't want to go back to the wage cage

>>4309151
3d photogrammetry capture, you can convert multiple photos of the same object into a 3d model, probably for video games. For a human, you have to take all the photos at the same time, since object needs to be stationary.

>>4309151
im not 100% sure but i think its one of those 3d model imaging things for those base CGI models for e.g movies or those realistic cartoons before they stick them up with all those movement sensors to do the animations.

again, not 100% sure but im 90% sure because this thing looks nearly identical to one of those

>>4308186
images like the one you posted are a result of a combination of 3 things;
>very low resolution, small size sensor
>a lens with either too low element count (less than 3) or a tiny lens with too many elements for its size (such as those found in old point and shoots or vey cheap lenses for old film cameras)
>and last but not least, the cheap, too strong on-camera flash obliterating 90% of all light particles that bounce off the environment youre shooting, before they bounce back to your lens to be picked up by your sensor/film

>>4308225
because not every camera manufacturer makes lenses to the same standards... some spend WAY more time (and money) on research, development and design than others do - and some, more known ones, spend even more. (E.G nikon and sony spend almost triple the amount canon does - and it shows, because nikon was always the only consumer giant that had lenses on par with hasselblad, zeiss, leica, voigtlander, helios, etc., etc...)

as for 3rd party manufacturers, most 3rd party lens manufacturers, such as the big three (tamron, samyang, sigma) either outsource their crappy lenses to chinese or some other east/central asian shithole or they just straight up try to do it themselves, in either case, 99% of them don't even have half the machinery the likes of nikon, sony, canon, leica, zeiss or other do -- and that's all not to mention their close to non-existent quality control and error correction manufacturing departments.

today, there are only two 3rd party manufacturers left (voigtlander and the chiense giant zy optics), who have the manufacturing power and necessary machinery to compete with the likes of nikon or leica or sony... which is actually really fucking sad, because in order to keep their lens quality on par with e.g leica or nikon, they are forced to either keep heavy funding R&D and development departments and buying most advanced machinery, resulting in them barely making profit per fiscal quarter or breaking even... or they can just straight up ''go sigma style'' greedy on customers and focus on profiteering and making as much money as they can, by selling half their shit and oursourcing everything to china

just a matter of time until all 3rd party lenses become sharp window glass

>>4308225
>that would mean production of the lenses wouldn't be as expensive
You just described what's called a "conflict of interest".

>>4309209
>zeiss
Don't you mean Cosina?

>>4309209
>nikon and sony spend almost triple the amount canon does
thats why canon spends 70 million on marketing ahahah i swear canon is like United States of camera world US spends all their money on army and canon spends it all on marketing kek
>and that's all not to mention their close to non-existent quality control and error correction manufacturing departments.
because those departments are actually fuckton expensive to run and in small companies they just bleed money, thats why most big companies in all industries have almost entirely computerized and robotized their quality control departments, because after all, they all care only about money, not the quality of their product. also, while speaking of quality control, sigma in specific has an entire 1 and something hour long video or documentary about their entire factory and lens manufacturing and their '''''''''quality control''''''' is quite literally, im not even joking, a couple of women checking glass elements under a microscope and then putting them on a projector and checking if the image on the wall is sharp enough hahahahahahaha i swear im not fucking joking, thats their idea of quality control hahahahahah
>just a matter of time until all 3rd party lenses become sharp window glass
i mean we are already 80 percent of the way there, sigma and samyang have sold more lenses than native camera manufactuers canon nikon and sony did because casual consumer nophoto retards and artless gearfags who make up for 70% of all sales everywhere, are only buying only those cheap 3rd party lenses because on their obliterated images they post on their instagrams, facebooks and whatnot, sigma and nikon images all look the same so they dont care and just buy whats cheapest

>>4309213
>thats why most big companies in all industries have almost entirely computerized and robotized their quality control departments
That's not true when it comes to photography industry. In our case it's the other way around. Smaller third party companies such as Sigma, Tamron or Samyang or others, will either 1. basically not have any quality control other than what's legally required of them to have or they will straight up spend as little money as they can on it. And it's not just Sigma, I'm pretty sure Tamron and Samyang do the same thing as Sigma with their quality control and I'm also pretty sure all the other small manufacturers, like Laowa, Sirui or NiSi also do the same exact thing and just have some random workers, working for $900 a month, putting the glass elements under a microscope for a couple of seconds, with their brains on auto-pilot and then mark it as good and throw it on the shelf.

That's why on the other side of the coin, you have Cooke, Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Panavision, ARRI, Angenieux, Zeiss, Leica and many, many others, who always have the most up to date, most modern, most expensive and most advanced technology, for every single process of manufacturing and then have like 10 step, multiple day quality controls and on top of that also have people checking each glass element AFTER quality control is done.

You should see the way Cooke and Shcneider Kreuznach make their cine glass... Their process is fucking insane, they have more strict AND longer manufacturing and quality control/inspection control process, than companies that make surgical microscopy robots... It's fucking insane how much time and work (and money) goes into making a single glass element for their lenses.

>>4309215
>they have more strict AND longer manufacturing and quality control/inspection control process, than companies that make surgical microscopy robots
ok now it all makes sense
no wonder s6 s8 and s7 cooke lenses costs 20-30 grand lmao

>>4309215
>Hasselblad, PhaseOne
Fujifilm and Mamiya

>>4309199
>>4309200
oh i was just asking if they were japanese or korean or whatever

How can my 1/160 pics with electronic shutter have motion blur although slightly. Feels like I cant trust it unless im shooting at 1/1000 in burst

>>4309253
Meaning blur from me, not from whatever im photographing

>>4309253
>>4309254
Downside of having so many megapixels.

>>4309253
Are you using a sony a7riv or older? Is the blur on only one side or the other? Has your lens been dropped?

>>4309267
No using m6 mkii
Dunno if the lens dropped but im a bit careless

>>4309267
> Is the blur on only one side or the other
Not sure about this actually

File: PICT2164.jpg (510 KB, 1728x1152)

510 KB JPG

What are my options if I would like to have decent quality pictures at f/1.4? Currently using a vintage screw mount 50 mm lens with an adapter but its image quality at f1.4 isn't that great (pic related)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:01 13:56:42
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4309253
would be easier to diagnose if you simply posted a picture
electronic shutter sucks in most cases

>>4309152
reasking this

>>4309283
Why do you think electronic shutter "sucks"? Mechanical shutter only has a few usages that are better than electronic, and they aren't the majority of shooting scenarios.

>>4309275
chinese glass wide open is much better than that

>>4309293
E shutter is a solution in search of a problem
>We made the delay between frames shorter but now you need to care about rolling shutter.
>Who needs this? The 5% of photographers shooting sports for a living?
>Yes. And us, because now you will want to buy a camera with less rolling shutter! OH LOOK THATS ON OUR ROADMAP GET OUT YOUR WALLET PAY PIGGIE AHAHAHAHA IF YOU DONT REDDIT WILL MAKE FUN OF YOUR CAMERA AND SAY ITS WORSE THAN MICRO FOUR THIRDS AHAHAHAHA
>Fuck you i'm going back to DSLRs

>>4309305
You addressed nothing regarding any shutter types, and you sound mad.

>>4309312
I am mad because the e-shutter and video shit marketing wars are being used as an excuse to create additional market stratification and keep prices high for shit that nobody fucking needs. Maybe megapixels and SNR have some use, but who the fuck needs to take 40 identical photos and since when do we take a long time to admire an individual video frame really closely?

Perhaps someone filming for hollywood, or shooting MLB so they need the moment the ball his the bat, repeatedly.

>>4309293
Largely depends on the model, but
>rolling shutter causing distortion for any movement
>worse image quality (dropping bit or worse dynamic range
>banding issues with artificial light
>less flash compatibility
>efcs messes with bokeh
Less problematic on some models, but still not great for most.

>>4309329
>worse image quality (dropping bit or worse dynamic range)
canon problems

>>4309331
sony too, a lot of models drop stills to 12bit for silent shutter
also, some like a7IV underexpose by nearly a full stop at higher ISO (compared to using mechanical shutter with same settings)

>>4309305
You do realize there is alot more photography than just your snapshits? I was using the electronic shutter for the eclipse.

>keep prices high
you sound poor

>but who the fuck needs to take 40 identical photos
people who do astro

>since when do we take a long time to admire an individual video frame really closely?
you use software like autostakkert to sort and merge them for you.

>>4309358
>What about the people larping as NASA's space imaging experts?
If exacting sports photographers that somehow need 40fps are 5% of the market that's another 0.0005% right there

The other 94.9995% of the market doesn't actually need more technical capability than is on the a7iii/a7riii, even if they think they do, and their photographic output would not change one bit if their R5s and Z8s were replaced as such.

Traveling asia for months with an x-t2, 18mmf2, 35mmf1.4, 70-300mm(for wildlife), and an iphone 15 pro max (13, 28, 50, 135). I kind of want another camera for attaching to my backpack chest strap, or putting on a selfie stick for video. Is a 360 camera best for this? Or action cam?

>>4309420
So, assuming you're paid nada, bringing a camera you plan on using constantly I'd say the cost doesn't justify a second just-in-case cam, unless you plan on doing a pov timelapse with an action cam or would make use of a 360 on your back in some interesting event/location.
Instead make sure you backup the photos you do take daily either on your personal NAS or in the cloud. Gear breaks/gets stolen, if you're chugging this much of it along I imagine the pics matter to you so make sure you lose as few as possible.

>>4309422
It's always good to get the perspective of not spending unnecessary money, but I'm sure I could get either option second hand for a couple hundred so price isn't actually much of a concern. Cloud backups is a good call though, I will likely figure out a provider to sign up for before departing. I could probably just get by with the iphone, but I could see a 360 cam being fun for temple walk-throughs and such, and my interests are mostly just about fun

Are macro flash diffusers really worth $100+? That's almost as much as the flash itself.

>>4309314
So you're mad that cameras that are a bit more expensive than you can comfortably afford have features you don't need. That's rather silly.

>>4309369
And here we see a prime example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy in the wild.

I managed to get an interview to be a photographer for a theme park. Anyone have any tips for the interview?

It'll mostly be walking around and taking pictures of guests if they ask for photos. I have street photography experience, but nothing professional. Would that be good enough for them?

>>4309890
Print out 30 photos on a cheap canon printer and just hand one to the interviewer in 15 second intervals without saying a word. They'll understand that you're a no nonsense kinda guy an you'll probably get the job on the spot.

>>4309554
Use parchment paper

should I change my setup from my x-t3 to a gx85 or gx9?
Would I recognize a difference in quality in any regard like sharpness, build quality, ...a decent lense assumed?

I find the fuji system a bit too bulky...

Will there be a great difference in dynamic range?

Explain the pros and cons of the following:

Good Body, Cheap Lens
vs
Good Lens, Cheap Body

Which is better and why?

>>4310076
good lens + cheap body
lens = types of pictures you take & their overall aesthetic
>sharpness, bokeh rendering, color
>coma, aberrations, vignetting
body = how efficiently that gets done
>resolution / dynamic range / noise / color
>autofocus / fps
>ergonomics / handling / customization

some types of shots simply require certain types of lenses, and you might be able to make do with a lesser body, just not as efficiently, a better lens can often compensate for a worse body pretty well
some types of shots aren't too demanding on a lens (stopped down sharp enough, plenty of light), but in a lot of those cases, a better body probably isn't giving too much benefit
there are always workarounds for either, just need to find what your "minimum performance thresholds" are for everything, once realize certain gear is beyond your actual needs anyways, you have ascended

File: Screenshot 2024-05-04 085330.png (118 KB, 1074x877)

118 KB PNG

>>4310076
and if you're minmaxing for mtf, this

>>4310076
It depends

>>4310014
>Going from "sufficient" amateur stuff to something so bad the primary company faltered and the secondary company resorted to making camcorders disguised as cameras
>With even worse quality than fuji - panasonic is known for port, sensor, ibis, mainboard, etc failures
It will not even be much smaller. Just worse all around
>b-bbbbbbut xtranny, video!
Such things do not matter if it's in phone sensor territory
https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/b8e2a0a2_2d912052-7d88166d_9293c001-00feee60_f21f757c-e02d7da4-t60

If you want a smaller system cameras do not actually get much smaller than the x-whatever, a6-whatever, a7c-etc regardless of sensor size so get a smaller lens instead. The only way lenses get smaller when you go to m43 is by being hideously slow "equivalently" - the smaller sensor gathers less light, so the lenses need wider apertures to compensate, which makes every system roughly the same size so only utlralight backpacking redditors counting grams even care.

>>4310076
some cheap lenses are good, very good, it doesn't matter that they're cheap.
some expensive lenses are objectively worse than or the same as the cheap lenses, but the people who already got scammed pile on the je ne sais quoi cope not knowing camera lenses are soulless pieces of banal equipment designed by computer algorithms and all of the character was as well charted as the "mtf" before the thing was even made (see: leica M mount, sony/zeiss fanboys), and the resulting schizophrenia resembles mass hallucinations in a way that reminds us that human vision does not actually see reality and is vulnerable to the power of suggestion

even outside of that, for example, the huge and expensive sony 85mm f1.4 GM, is not appreciably sharper than the cheaper and smaller sony 85mm f1.8 on real subjects, it just has f1.4.

so the actual redpill is:
buy the body that has the technical features you want and ergonomics you think you will enjoy
ignore everyone telling you what you should want, what you should need, and what you "dont" need, these people are coping. hard. they are mentally ill. just laugh at them.
the only thing you should care about that you might not care about initially is build quality. it's not that everyone takes photos in the rain, but a lot of cameras get rained on during travel.
make sure the top 3 lenses you want (not the ones you would settle for) are available natively, first or third party, with no compromises for functionality or desired rendering - lens selection is controlled by body, even the FOV and perceived sharpness of your lens is.
other lenses will come to you. there are a million lenses. there are tons of adapters. if you need another lens one day you will be able to find a good one, and it won't necessarily be expensive, especially if you bought a mirrorless camera. all of EF mount works on every single brand, ffs.

so im looking for a new camera, nikon z8 in particular and i see people complaining about battery life. is that really such a big deal for people? i assumed that every (even hobbyist) has a spare battery on a shoot and swapping a battery is like 5-10 seconds maximum?

>>4310103
The battery consumption rating for MILCs is based on screen runtime even though its rated in shots because CIPAs test is taking a shot every 30s and keeping the camera from going to sleep

So CIPA shots x 30 = seconds of battery life with the screen on
Use a screen timeout, dont chimp, dont fuck with settings, and the camera lasts all day

>>4310111
i know how it works, my question is why or how are people obsessing over battery life when:

1. they have more than one most of the time
2. they weigh nothing
3. swapping them takes no time
4. as you said, when using it correctly, it lasts very long

so what is their problem

>>4310103
if you like to leave your camera on all the time and just rely on the power saving time out, or you like to not charge your camera for weeks and weeks, yes battery life will suck
you can easily get 1000-1500 shots under normal shooting conditions and simply turning the camera off when not actively using it
you can keep it topped off through usb charging when taking breaks too
2 batteries should cover a full day of shooting for like 99% of people

>>4310114
That's like asking why people have literal angry meltdowns over video features that are not relevant and have literally no visible benefit unless you work for a netflix original series, or your hobby is pausing and zooming in

Because they enjoy it. That's why. It helps them feel good about their purchase, or their desire to make another purchase.

I kept the same battery in a z6 going for ~8 hours and what finally killed it and required a swap was a 15 minute video, its a nothingburger

>>4310116
>that guy, and we all run into that guy, who randomly starts saying your camera is shit and you should have bought a canon r5 because all of its good points are essential and all of its flaws are irrelevant and user error for even caring about them
Fuck those guys
Yes its literally the same thing with battery life wank, just more money cope. if cameras were free you wouldn't see 1% as much.

Is there any advantage to using CF cards over SD cards in a camera that accepts both? I am not trying to rapid fire 30 successive shots of birds in flight or anything like that.

File: DSC_8492 copy.jpg (973 KB, 1572x885)

973 KB JPG

Shooting a 70-200mm at f11 and low ISO but still getting a really shallow DOF. Any ideas why?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	914
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	180 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:05 20:30:12
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	180.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1572
Image Height	885
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4310662
DOF decreases as you zoom in and as you focus closer

>>4310441
Transfer speed when offloading to a computer
Extremely long time lapse shooting (and assuming you're talking about nikon they're the best time lapse cameras)
4k video

>>4310662
>>4310668
Depth of field is pretty much the same at the same aperture and framing, regardless of focal length (i.e. 50mm f/2 at 2m would be the same as 200mm f/2 at 8m). What you could try, if you have the resolution to spare, is taking a step back and cropping in. Or just put the camera in crop mode.

>>4310691
You are wrong.
Focal length affects DOF, not just subject distance/framing.

This is how smaller form factor cameras at "equivalent" focal distances achieve greater depth of field. Also, why a smartphone at ~28mm has insane depth of field at low apertures like f1.2-f1.7-f2, they're short focal lengths (like literally 4mm lenses) with big crops and they get big DOF from the short optics.

You can't work around this.
It's inherent to the optics.
Sensor size affects nothing more than FOV within your perspective with a given lens.

>>4310789
No, you're wrong. Your examples have a larger depth of field because they have smaller sensors. They are the equivalent of taking a step back and cropping the image, like I said.

>>4310662
stand further away and crop your image

>>4310789
anon is right, use any DOF calculator and you can easily prove it

>>4308015
Does anyone have lens recommendations for photographing architecture stuff? I just use a standard 50mm lens for most things but I’m curious if a wide angle lens would be better? Specifically a k-mount lens btw. Sorry for the genuinely stupid question I’m new to this stuff.

Best way to hold your camera / brace yourself for shooting without a tripod to reduce hand shake?

>>4310963
tilt shift

File: threepaug23x1.jpg (85 KB, 600x506)

85 KB JPG

>>4310973
rest your elbow on your hip, similar to what you do with a rifle

File: Dement.jpg (50 KB, 600x399)

50 KB JPG

>>4311045

>>4311045
>>4311048
I don't know where they are resting their weight or steadying themselves here. Can words be used to describe best photo shooting without comparing to guns? Those aren't a thing where I live.

are lenses made for crop sensor cameras actually the stated focal distance or do you still apply the crop?

>>4311338
any lens you put on a crop camera, you apply the crop factor

>>4311321
>Those aren't a thing where I live
There's no help for you then.

>>4311338
Unless it says "equivalent" it's basically always the actual focal distance they list and you need to apply the crop factor yourself. And don't forget to slap the crop factor onto the aperture as well, they sure as hell don't do that for you.

>>4311338
Focal length is an inherent physical property of a lens, the sensor size has no effect on it. What it does effect is the field of view. For example a 20mm lens on a 4/3s body is a 20mm lens, but you could say it gives the same field of view as a 40mm lens would on a full frame body.

Shooting in monochrome in-body vs applying monochrome in post. Is there any tangible technical benefit to switching your body to monochrome shooting beyond live view visualization?

I'm going on a trip to Japan later this year, is the second hand market there worth to wait until then or should I just use ebay and get over it

>>4308309
>the compact/PNS normie camera era is over.
So why are digishitters skyrocketing in price?

>>4311535
Bc genA is full of monkey-see monkey-do trend whore retards that all mindlessly do whatever they see on tiktok. Bunch of fucking zombies.

>>4311535
limited stock of what little still works and is worth using + a few hundred k out of 9 billion people = price hike

File: IMG_8961.jpg (2.68 MB, 4032x3024)

2.68 MB JPG

I had shot somewhere around 21-22 frames, I think, on this roll

And then I look at the counter and it says pic related. What does it mean? If I already shot 24 will they come out? I thought I was using 36 film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone SE (2nd generation)
Camera Software	16.6.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:07 23:25:47
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	-1.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.99 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4311545
I don’t think the back ever opened.

File: 8c013623bba9ddbb20976d437(...).png (1.69 MB, 1080x804)

1.69 MB PNG

>>4308015
Should I just send it in to Nikon for repair? I'm a total fucking retard, I barely dropped it and then I realized it was missing that ring/cover that goes on the front when the rest of the lens came out. Scrub shitter so I have no idea what the lens anatomy even is.

>>4310844
My examples?
What examples?

That ain't me chief, and no, you are wrong.
Lens focal length affects DOF. So too does focus distance.
Using a shorter lens, on a crop body, and achieving "equivalency" vs full frame or medium format resusults in a wider DOF.

Crops are simply crops.
No magic.
A 50mm lens at 12" f/2.8 has the same DOF as a 50mm APS-C lens at 12" f/2.8
difference is APS-C gives you a crop

>They are the equivalent of taking a step back and cropping the image, like I said.
There is no equivalency in this regard, at all, ever. Nothing here is equivalent.
DOF is never the same, perspective ain't the same, it all changes.
When your feet move, the photo changes. Can't compare two different photos.
You're falling for some faggot YouTuber myth that they endlessly spam for clickbait.
Stop believing two different things can be the same and embrace the fact that shit is simply different.

every time i shoot with mft/apsc, the 50mm "equivalent" lens still has a wide angle look to the perspective. in theory this shouldn't happen, right? are the focal lengths actually mismeasured and a 35mm on aps-c actually tends towards being a 30mm?

>>4311574
Post examples.
You're probably talking about lens distortion, but other than that, it isn't uncommon for lenses to be falsely labeled in this digital era. The expectation in the modern landscape is as follows.


First, you are being scammed.
Second, your lenses can't be used passively anymore and require a proprietary body to control aperture/focus, unlike lenses of the past that could be repurposed and used for DIY cameras.
Third, you are being lied to.
Fourth, most lenses unless stated otherwise are seriously flawed by design and rely on digital post-process corrections. This includes lens distortion, barrel/pincushion.

The fourth issue is so severe that some lenses without corrections+cropping actually deliver wider than advertised FOV, so they behave like a shorter lens.

If you're viewing on social media at at 1000px wide with lens corrections applied you shouldn't notice much of a difference but if you're not using corrections you can expect lenses to behave weirdly these days.

>>4311387
>>4311433
>>4311434
thanks, always wondered about this but could never find a direct answer

>>4311574
>lens still has a wide angle look to the perspective
take some actual comparison shots and you'll see how similar they are
if your standing in the same spot, you'll have the same perspective and field of view
there is some some variance between measured and actual focal length, but that's independent of sensor size and certainly applies to 50mm lenses too

>>4311574
A 35mm on APSC is 35mm glass, the equivalence comes from the perceived focal length due to the smalller sensor. The lens captures the same light regardless of sensor.

I heard that to print photos you should have images that are 300DPI. My nikon d7000 makes them 240DPI, I followed what adobe said and changed the value in photoshop in image size while unchecking resample so the image size doesn't change. I saved 2 JPEG copies at the same quality and resolution and even when pixel peeping they look absolutely the same. Am I doing something wrong?

>>4311563
>Lens focal length affects DOF. So too does focus distance.
Yes, but given the same framing the depth of field is the same at the same f/ stop on the same sensor size. Yes the perspective will be different but that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about the measured length of the depth of field. If you go and use an 85mm f/1.8 to take the same photo as a 50mm f/1.8, with the same framing, then the depth of field will be identical in both photos. The photos will not look identical of course but we're not discussing that.

File: aIMG_0405.jpg (1.11 MB, 2000x1333)

1.11 MB JPG

What did I do wrong here? I thought shutter speed should be enough, also the aparture.
But I don't get where my focus went

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II
Lens Size	8.80 - 44.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:05 18:20:03
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	8.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Unknown
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	172
Color Matrix	35

>>4311628
DPI only matters once printed. On your computer the image will be counted in pixels x pixels.
If you print with a higher DPI, your end result will have smaller dimensions, inches x inches.
If you print and fit the image to canvas, the DPI will be chosen for you.

>>4311663
Oh, thanks I didn't know that. So I could just set the centimeters of a photo in photoshop like 15x18 and export it that way?

>>4311664
Generally, you shouldn't need to worry about DPI unless you are making a very large print. Saving something in cm or in isn't needed if you are sending the file to a printing service. You'll pick the dimensions on their website and they will scale your image up or down to fit. Unless your pixel count is very very low, 15x18 (in?) will have a good DPI. Having too high of a DPI has no downside, the extra data just can't be printed.

Example, I recently ordered a canvas print of my in-laws' dog for Mother's Day. I have no idea what DPI it effectively was, because I just used a high quality, high resolution jpeg exported from my ~32MP raw. The canvas ordered was 16x20, the image is just cropped / scaled to fit. If you do a crop print (image zoom 100%, 1 pixel = 1 dot), the DPI of the file would only be relevant if you can actually affect the printing in some way. Outside of professional printing, you usually won't even know what DPI the printer service uses.
Generally, always keep the most pixels in your image, and choose the DPI in printing, not saving.
Again, this advise assumes normal usages. If you are working in a studio / print manufacturer, you should know more about DPI, along with a whole lot of other proofing knowledge.

>>4311679
thanks

>>4311652

Your focus went to the ground. what AF points are you using?

File: aIMG_0413.jpg (1.38 MB, 2000x3000)

1.38 MB JPG

>>4311736
One Shot AF
Tracking and Face Recognition
Continuous AF was off - I will try it with on now.

Or maybe try not face recognition but setting it to one spot; or maybe even better would be to select and snap via the touch display for similiar shots.
Never used a 1" camera - might as well have to get used to a shallower depth of field?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II
Lens Size	8.80 - 44.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:05 18:53:30
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	33.33 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Unknown
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	172
Color Matrix	35

I want to get into photography so I'm looking into getting my first camera. What I'm wondering is if I should go for a full size sensor straight away or should I stick to something smaller and cheaper for now. I was looking at a Nikon d7000. Should I spend an extra 100 bucks and get a D700 instead? I don't want to spend money on something that I'm not sure I'll even stick with but if the difference is massive idk.

Additionally, what should I get as a first lens? My main interests are wildlife and architecture so I'll mainly be taking pictures of that. Is there an equivalent to a bridge camera lens for a DSLR? Something all around usable? Ideally, I'll be looking to spend around 100 bucks on it.

>>4311779
>lens
>I'll be looking to spend around 100 bucks on it.

the lens is far more important that your body

File: 2024-05-08 18_32_13-Stand(...).png (491 KB, 1279x723)

491 KB PNG

>>4311321
most of your weight on your rear leg, leaning back a bit, resting the elbow of your forward arm on your hip. it works well for a standing position in competitive long range rifle shooting, a camera and lens should weigh even less than a rifle even out to some of the super telephotos available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLZYKLm27RA

>>4311785
Let's say I have 400 dollars (euros but whatever) avaliable. How should I distribute those body/lens wise? Any recommendations?

>>4311801

That's maybe enough for one or the other, I'd say your budget is too small to get a decent kit. Remember you'll also need to pick up an SD card if you don't have one already at the least. Especially since you're interested in wildlife, a lens capable of good sharp photos at the ranges you need alone will be more than your entire budget. For architecture, on the other hand, your options are a lot more since you'll only really need something between, say, 24-85mm.

>>4311810
>>4311801

I checked the euro MPB site for you and here's the most decent kit I could throw together that was as close to you're budget as I could, sticking to your preference for a Nikon kit.

>Body: https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/nikon-d3400/sku-2525661

>Lens: https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/sigma-18-200mm-f-3-5-6-3-dc-os-hsm-nikon-fit/sku-2408674

or

https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/sigma-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-dg-macro-nikon-fit/sku-2372765

Depending on whether or not you want the sub 70mm focal ranges for wider street/architecture shots or if you'd rather reach the 300mm recommended minimum focal length for wildlife.

I read in the /p/ archives that the Pentax K-1 was salvaged from a canceled 645z successor or some such. Does anyone have more info about this?

So I'm looking at old wedding photos of people in my family, and most were from the film era. If I'm going to shoot people at a wedding, including brides who may have veils which cause overlapping patterns that would probably create moire... what's the solution to that for digital? Is there even one? Not looking to do this shit professionally but considering taking my cameras to future weddings and it got me thinking.

Is this why some people still shoot film at weddings? The infinite capture resolution and randomness in the medium that isn't as sensitive to this shit?

link related, has some examples
https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/404164-need-help-getting-rid-of-moire-on-brides-veil/

>>4311814
Thanks for the recommendations! I just picked them up. I'll make sure to post pics when the camera arrives in a few days.
>your preference for a Nikon kit
No real preference there. I just decided to keep my research focused on a single brand, otherwise the choices were going to be way too overwhelming. Also, from my limited time lurking on this board, it seemed people here prefer Nikon. Not sure if that's based on reality though or just 4chan bullshitery.