>>3766852
True :,(

“Why would you buy a camera when phones are now better anyway?”

I’ve heard several guys in their 20s say this. They don’t even know each other. Someone’s going around convincing young people that phones have good cameras :,(

>>3766858
It was coined there because /v/edditors are too stupid to dodge the filter and the same is true for discord troons.

>>3766891
They do have good cameras lol, as far as performance is concerned. Creative photography is another matter.

>>3766891
but phone cameras ARE for the most part better than "real" cameras now. convincing yourself otherwise is cope.

>>3766916
Let's not get crazy. The sensor tech is more advanced, the cameras as a whole aren't really better. Despite the tech they struggle at low light.

>>3764965
it has a 19.9MP Super35 Global Shutter CMOS. has there been any cinema CCD cameras?

File: maul.png (1.23 MB, 1920x816)

1.23 MB PNG

>>3766700
You have seen a movie shot with a Sony HDC-750 that had three 2/3" 2MP CCDs. Was it cinematic?

>>3752639
the death of print is a shame

>>3766831
It was too expensive and hard to buy for non-city boys.
Even nowadays a popular japanese book from the mid-70's in rough conditions costs as much as a decent lens. Honestly i would only collect them to scan and dump the PDF out there.

>>3754834
He has said several times it's going to be musical, he has some rad beats but they are for 90's sensibilities.
Lots of house beats and MIDI comedy instruments.

>>3762482

A Nikon D90 would be possible. Or a Canon T3i. With a cheap prime lens. The zoom lenses are useless on aps-c bodies. Too much distortion and they are not sharp. If you want a cheap 35mm prime lens you're better of with Nikon.

to everyone saying dslr like t3i, you need to check shutter counts. they have a finite amount of counts before it breaks. mirrorless you don't have to worry about this. if you like video eos M and magic lantern are good, but people don't like it as much for stills. I don't know why.

>>3766490
>you need to check shutter counts. they have a finite amount of counts before it breaks
The shutter count gives you an idea of how long the camera has been used.
>mirrorless you don't have to worry about this
It's still worth knowing because sensors get hot pixels and dead pixels over time. And they also have shutters. The difference is that there's no mirror mechanism, but for example Sony curtain shutters are known to fail.
Shutter count is a parameter you want to be as low as possible.

>>3762497
didn't know blizzard is here

>>3763188
>>3763730
Who is this hyper trashy chick?

>>3766829
>you're not going to make it as a professional photographer.
And I don't want to. I have my shitty Instagram page with shitty street snapshots, and I have 250 subscribers, most of them Asian for some reason. My photos usually get around 50 likes on a good day. Do I care? Hell no.

>Let's get serious: If you don't have a significant number of followers on Instagram, you're not going to make it as a professional photographer.

you are fucking retarded, go and look up all the local photographers that make a living out of it with families and own a house and try to find their Instagram.

>>3766829
incorrect

>>3766829
>Let's get serious: If you don't have a significant number of followers on Instagram, you're not going to make it as a professional photographer.

IG followers: 45
Years working as a full-time photographer: 16

ok so you were saying

>>3766829
Man this is so clearly bait

>>3767338
Takumar/Mamiya fast lenses, especially the radioactive stuff.

>>3767345
I don't want to listen to Imagine Dragon songs please

I want to get my first DSLR and am currently looking at a 6d mk II.

I'd like to get a good lens with it, too, and I think Canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM would be a good fit for me. But is it a good fit for the camera? I know it technically does fit the 6d mk II. But, given that this is an expensive lens, would it be worth it to invest in a 5d mk III instead? (I can't afford the mk IV)

I'm pretty new to all this, so please bear with me. Just want to get some thoughts on pairing a pro lens with an "enthusiast" level camera.

Can anyone recommend a decent tripod for under $100?

>>3767657
Q999H on aliexpress.

>>3765057
jazz

>>3765057
Perfect
Now stop vaping and smoke real cigs

fat rips yooo

clean your lens bruddy

>>3765743
fuck that

>>3766742
that's some heavily edited photo that sold for a few million or something

on topic tho, i kinda want tatsuo's photobook, looks nice

>>3766747
>tatsuo's photobook, looks nice
It is, you can get his zines too

>>3766752
oh nice i'll check those out too. love how saturated the pages of the photobook seem to be

>>3766753
It’s neat, he got it printed on black paper rather than white so it has a very different feeling to it over a lot of photo books I own.

>>3766759
sick, yeah the zines look good too. he's based never heard of him until this thread

>>3766000
no

>>3765969
>>3765981
This. Also short focal lengths help.

>>3766000
It already happened. Also nice trips.
It already

>>3764030
Exposure triangle:
>shutterspeed
>aperture
>sensitivity

With a slow shutterspeed of 1/10 and an aperture of f/2 at ISO 1600, your exposure is the same as f/5.6 and 1/40 at ISO 25600.
2 stops slower lens + 2 stops faster shutterspeed = 4 stops higher ISO = 4 stops more noise.

Keep in mind none of that is requiring any ultra fancy gear, pretty much all somewhat recent cameras can do ISO 1600 and 1/10 second shutterspeed and f/2 primes aren't exactly expensive lenses either.

More modern or higher end cameras produce some pretty clean images at ISO 1600 (in that example) to begin with.
You can still run a noise reduction algorythm over it to reduce noise at the cost of some sharpness.
>>3766000
Depends on the lens and setting.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: denoiselogo.png (110 KB, 312x289)

110 KB PNG

>caring about ISO noise when this exists

>>3766686
I'm absolutely sure even that software can't salvage the ISO 12800 pushed 3 stops from my EOS 2000D.

>>3766475
>3766475
It's 2020 for Pete's sake. Just have them do "female" poses.

ask r/traa

dude, if you really want to look good in photo, do solid workout (no overtrain, but definitely well past breaking sweat) and take a selfie then

Since most people cant act for shit, this is your best bet to not look like weak and pretending ass bitch

>>3766475
Take shirt off and flex.

File: 1589782086864.jpg (98 KB, 646x640)

98 KB JPG

this is one of those things that you either think is cringe or neat

File: 1596924211594.jpg (267 KB, 775x685)

267 KB JPG

>>3766631
cringe for wrong aspect
>>3766635
>>3766633
neat for correct aspect
>>3766637
weird for, i can't find a words to describe

>>3766602
I find it pretty 4chan incel thing. We're all to awkward to find subjects for our photos. Anime girls and pepes are a fine substitute.

>>3766676
MOMMY

If only one then definitely 50mm.
With hugin you can stitch 3 vertical 50mm photos and easily cover 24mm (and often with better results). For landscapes almost never this will be a problem. If you want the dirt and sky in the frame then you can do it with 6 or nine photos 3x2 or 3x3. Same can be done for architecture.
For tele in most cases you can just get closer.
The only problem is when you cannot get closer or you want shoot face only portrait - then you need 80+ mm
Also indoors + full body will be problematic on 50mm but grandpas birthday can be shoot with a phone.

>>3765907
this was me, 50mm on crop for years and then i got a full frame and needed wider so i got a 20mm and then landed in the middle at 35mm

>>3766488
it's not though lmao

>>3766514
>image shows focal length differences, troll still denies what the proven example(s) show. can't prove otherwise, gives zero supporting samples for claim. blind, retarded, or troll?

>>3766519
Not him, but he is right though:
It's the perspective, more importantly the distance to the subject.
If you use two different lenses of different focal length at the same distance to the subject and crop them to show the same area, you end up with identical images.
(At least when we're ignoring depth of field and sharpness)
Longer focal lengths only force you to go further away, a 75 mm f/3 on FF looks the same as a 50 mm f/2 on APSC after all.

File: CUK06775_01.jpg (2.43 MB, 1440x1800)

2.43 MB JPG

>>3766515
Thank you, sir.

>>3766543
Uh oh. Why?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	darktable 3.2.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2020:11:17 17:49:59
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1440
Image Height	1800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>3764650
Something about spaghetti straps has always pissed me off. I think it's that they always look so flimsy and obviously practical, with visible seams.

>>3761581
Is there some specific reason as to why you'd post these? As in, do you think any of these are any good?
You're removing any and all textures of skin in every single pic, in a very unflattering way.
You manage to miss focus on the eyes in every single pic - focus is ALWAYS off by a couple of inches.
Pic quoted - what the fuck, did you just say fuck off to the clarity all around the model, and NOT edit out the bottom right corner's texture?
You managed to snap a good amount of pics in varying locations, but literally nothing changed. The only defining characteristics of these is daft, bland and bad.

It's a shame, the girl isn't in any way, shape or form a prize, but the willingness to put up with having you in front of her could have landed you some good shots anyways.
Also, every single pic could have been edited to at least catch an eye on instagram or something to lure in some other reject for a new go with your new insights.

>>3766626
>Daddy
This whole rant has "I'm a shitty wanna-be dom but no one wants to do a scene with me because I don't grasp the difference between domination and just being an asshole" energy. Are you trying to neg the op in a pick-up-artist way to try to get him to fuck you? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for the combination of mean-for-the-sake-of-mean "critique" while making literally zero valid arguments.

> textures
Adjust your monitor if you think there's no skin texture, because I definitely see skin texture.
> miss focus
He's posting these at relatively low resolution. That's not the same as missing focus. In each of these shots, you can see elements in planes ahead of the eyeballs and behind the eyeballs that are equally in focus to the eyeballs, which says that the eyes are definitely within the depth of field. Hell, he's shooting with an A7II, and it's hard to get those to NOT focus on a person's eyes.
> did you just say fuck off to the clarity all around the model, and NOT edit out the bottom right corner's texture?
He didn't "say fuck off to the clarity all around the model"; he's shooting at f/2.2 on a full frame camera in that shot and so the background is blurred. Like, do you not know anything about photography? The model's arm in the lower right corner is sharp because it's in about the same plane of focus as her eyes.

> literally nothing changed
Different models, different poses, different expressions, different outfits, different styles of portraiture. This criticism just makes absolutely no sense.

File: CUK06833.jpg (2.05 MB, 1440x1800)

2.05 MB JPG

>>3766607
ooh yeah. Fair enough lol. It was also a crazy windy and cold day. Yikes.

>>3766626
Hey appreciate the comment! Just wanted to show you guys my work is all.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	darktable 3.2.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2020:11:16 10:01:56
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Brightness	1.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1440
Image Height	1800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>3766498
Don't care much for the election, whoever won, Biden or Trump, is first and foremost an ally to the rich.
That being said, I'm glad the blue men were better at rigging this term, so the Trump circus can end. Biden seems like he at least knows how to behave himself in public and can form a sentence that makes sense to normal people, not just hillbilly maga inbreds.

>>3766621
Oh and I forgot to say that the magatard salt that will ensue when Joe is coronated wil be higher quality than the himalayan kind. So that'll be fun to watch.

>>3766502
>I hope they’re still seething about it to this day
You're naive if you think they care, the receive funding to push idpol, and you're even naiver if you think about (((da joos))) when I say funding. They receive it from the rich in general, they aim to divert attention of the working class from the fact that there's more important issues than some druggie porn actor choking to death after he overdosed on fentanyl and the cops had to hold him down. Also they want to eliminate conventional masculinity because that promotes not being passive and doing something about things. Once every guy is a Cardi B worshipping basedboy that's when they won.
Here's your redpill for the day anon.

>>3766498
>this election
lmao dude pozzflix has been pozzflix for years, even before Trump was in the political arena

>>3766656
Their shows are definitely getting more and more loaded with toxic feminism though. Look at Sabrina, I watched that with my then-gf-now-ex when it came out and I had to quit after like 10 minutes when the showmakers already felt it was appropriate to make a subplot point about how "misogynistic" some principal was because he ignored that a bunch of guys tried to lift some girl's tshirt to see if she has tits because she (?) was supposed to be enby or something? Absolute bs, if you see this in a show, just quit.

>>3759996
Make it brighter. Food and kitchenware look better when it's bright and overexposed.

Everytime I see those 'behind the scenes' of rather big Youtube channels I notice it's 99% lighting with some ancient ASP-C DSLR on a mount somewhere.

>>3760134
Oui je suis français ! Trop cool

>>3760115
Needs some color grading, and maybe raise your F-stop number to get more of your scene in focus. Unless you're doing detail closeups, you don't want your depth of field to be that shallow.
What do you use to edit?

>>3759961
Honestly, sensor size is less important for video. It helps in very low light but it doesn't help all that much in terms of sharpness/resolution. This is because everything gets scaled to 4k or 1080p and the processing used becomes more important than the sensor size.

As an example, the Fuji X-T3/X-T4 consistently produce some of the sharpest, most detailed 4k output using APS-C sensors. In terms of 4k IQ they're a match for any FF body out there right now.

Having said all of that, I'm surprised you're unhappy with the G7 and wonder if you shouldn't focus on glass and workflow before buying a different camera. You should be able to get clean, sharp video out of that body.

>>3766344
i think he's choking on something. you should go get help

Black friday is almost here and I'm trying to pick up a new lens for ~$300. My only other lens is 35mm f2. This is all for street photography so the options I'm considering are:
- used fuji 18-55 2.8-4.0
- used fuji 50mm f2
- viltrox 56mm f1.4
- viltrox 23mm f1.4

I'm particularly attracted to the viltrox 56mm and think I could be happy with those two focal lengths for a while, but reports of purple fringing are worrisome to me as a SOOC jpeg shooter who probably will never edit the photos in post. How hard is it to avoid high contrast shots that cause fringing when shooting at night? At day? Out of 1000 shots, how many would you think would be ruined by fringing? Also if you have opinions about any of the above lenses I'd be happy to hear it too

>>3766535
Ruined? That’s debatable. Imo fringing is something that only pixel peeping photographers talk about, I’ve never seen street photogs care. The 56mm wil give you an 85mm or so equiv which is a decent zoom, but honestly since you’ve already got the 35mm f2 I’d say go for a wide angle for street. I get more use out of a 24 or 28 equiv for street than my Fuji 56mm f1.2, I use that for portraits. Out of what you pick I’d say get the 23mm for a 35mm equiv. That’s my most used focal length for street

>>3766535
>>3766550
I agree with this anon. There's no need to worry about fringing. You're definitely going to get it if you're shooting in bright light with hard shadows. Nobody besides pixel peepers care. And yeah, for street I'd get a 24mm or something to get you close to a 35mm equivalent. That's goldilocks for street. Honestly, you might be able to get a used Fuji 23mm f/2 for that price range.

>>3766550
>>3766551
Thanks for assuaging my fringing fears. Regarding focal length, I've found myself wanting zoom more than I have a wider lens on my walkabouts. I like the idea of street portraits where a single subject fills more of the frame, also it'll let me get closer in on layered buildings, things across the street, ducks, etc. Viltrox has a 13mm f1.4 on their roadmap for early 2021 so I might consider that for a third lens depending on how it performs