[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 25 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: tinylens.jpg (170 KB, 1380x1018)
170 KB
170 KB JPG
Have you ever seen such a tiny lens? Full Frame chads are just so lucky.
>>
>>3797676
Minuscule truly
>>
How big is a 23mm f1.0 crop lens?
>>
>>3797693
Pretty fucking huge which is why I don't understand why you would call this thing 'tiny'
>>
File: tiny lensjpg.jpg (178 KB, 1600x1066)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>3797693
24 mm f/2.8 is pretty damn small though

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1600
Image Height1066
>>
>>3797702
The cameras are huge though. Don't really see the point of compacts on DSLRs
>>
File: O9170050.jpg (111 KB, 1022x663)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>3797702
I don't know of any 35mm f4 lenses for full frame to do a direct comparison, but the 35mm 2.8 similarly tiny, but weighs less than a third of that canon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M1MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.1
PhotographerMerkosh
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2019:09:17 18:30:27
Exposure Time1/10 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length62.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1022
Image Height663
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3797712
Canons compact bodies with a pancake are pretty damn small.
>>
>>3797726
>Canons compact bodies with a pancake are pretty damn small.
Even with a chonky boy like the 5D line, sticking a 40/2.8 pancake on it makes it feel a lot smaller than something like a 24-105 or even just a 50/1.4.
>>
gearfags should kill themself
>>
Aperture ring, that size, and FF? I want to switch from Z6. Someone talk me out of it. The 1.8 lenses are so fucking big
>>
File: iseries_mirrorless_03.jpg (1.47 MB, 2000x1333)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB JPG
>>3797676
You mean like what Sigma has?
>>
File: sigma-fp-14-24mm-hero1.jpg (946 KB, 3840x2880)
946 KB
946 KB JPG
>>3797781
Looks weird with a big lens tho
>>
File: Sigma-fp-10.jpg (743 KB, 2400x1600)
743 KB
743 KB JPG
>>3797783
Looks nice with a grip though
>>
>>3797783
Canon compact DSLR with 800 mm f/8 catadioptic lens looks weird as well.
That thing had 105 mm filter threads.
>>3797746
One big issue with too small bodies like some mirrorless cameras have is that the ergonomics suffer a lot.
>no grip
>fewer physical controlls
>less mass*radius^2 (rotational inertia) to stabilize the camera
>>
>>3797787
>the ergonomics suffer a lot
I find them damned uncomfortable, I prefer a gripped 5D4 with chunky zoom lenses. Anything less is for sissies.
>>
>>3797832
Ok boomer
>>
>>3797676
I don't understand why left-eyed people would ever buy a rangefinder style camera like that.
>>
>>3797676
Compared to the existing options which are the Sony Zeiss 35 f/1.4, the Sigma 35 f/1.4, and the Samyang 35 f/1.4, it's fucking tiny. It's a great lens and I'm gonna get one.
>>
>>3797787
Hold the lens pussy boy. Rotational inertia.

>>3797783
Should see mine with the 100-400 attached
>>
>>3797833
okay memevictim
>>
>>3797833
He's not entirely wrong though. It's important for a camera to handle properly, though I feel that it differs between photographers to an extent. I'd hate to shoot my heavy ass 80-200 Nikkor zoom on a very compact mirrorless body.
>>
File: rangefinder_compare.jpg (628 KB, 2000x837)
628 KB
628 KB JPG
You got nothing on old rangefinder lenses.

Left to right
Voigtlander 21mm f/4
Zorki 1 with a collapsible Industar 50mm f/3.5
Canon LTM 50mm f/1.4 (yes 1.4)
for comparison Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.8
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.2
Lens NameEF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:01:13 23:11:51
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeAv-Priority
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
ISO Speed RatingAuto
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeAI Focus
Drive ModeUnknown
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
Color Matrix135
Color Temperature5200 K
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed352
>>
File: At last I truly see.png (93 KB, 600x507)
93 KB
93 KB PNG
>>3797781
>>3797783
>>3797786
>CINE|STILL
>cinestill
>>
>>3797863
>Hold the lens pussy boy. Rotational inertia.
Can't do that with a pancake and low rotational inertia would still be an issue.
>>
File: untitled.png (17 KB, 488x202)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>3797781
>>3797786
Sigma's aperture rings have a big flaw actually.
<- They always jump in big 1/3 steps even though you set it to click-less and try to adjust smoothly.

Sigma is still at the beginner stage where they fumble around with the fly-by-wire, and can't quite get it precise enough.

These are areas where Sony and Canon are a bit more thoughtful.
>>
>>3797876
Then you're holding your camera wrong.

The weight should always be on the left hand, which should be only under the lens on a large lens like that, and the smaller mirrorless body on the end of the lever and fulcrum you've made will have much less momentum and instability.
>>
Just preordered my 35GM. I've wanted the Sigma 1.2, but every review says the same thing about it not really being a true 1.2 and it being closer to 37mm
>>
>>3798026
>not really being a true 1.2
It is a true F1,2.

It's just fucking huge and heavy. And its aperture ring is less granular than the GM. That's about the only two bad things about it.
>>
>>3798024
>and the smaller mirrorless body on the end of the lever and fulcrum you've made

No no no, I want something hefty that I can get a good form grip on for when I swing it at the heads of pompous pillocks like you. Some girly mirrorless body is only likely to result in a bit of bruising whereas a studly, gripped DSLR could invest you with serious concussion.

When I am out and about with my camera it is in my hand at all times, it is only actually jammed against my head for the act of pressing the shutter button for a very small percentage of that time. For the rest of the time I want something I can wrap my manly hands around, not something I have to carry in a handbag or with a pair of fucking tweezers.

But to each their own.
>>
>>3798061
>I want something hefty that I can get a good form grip on
try some fat cocks for a change
>>
>>3798064
>try some fat cocks for a change
Got one of my own, thanks, long as well
>>
>>3798061
Still, regardless of body type, or what you're doing with the camera, you're supposed to be holding it by the lens if it's a large lens.

And why aren't you using a strap? You just hold it like a women clutch purse? Are you gay lad?

>Manly hands
>Claiming of weight imbalances in a small electronic good

Something doesn't add up.
>>
>>3797961
My understanding of the lenses is that they were designed with the Sigma fp in mind, which only has one dial, meaning that if you set the camera into M, you'd need to use the dial for SS and the aperture ring on the lens. I'd assume things are different in A and S modes, with the issue being nonexistent in P.

I have a Sigma lens on a different system, and it doesn't feature an aperture ring, with full control being done from 2 dials on the camera.
>>
>>3798069
You misunderstand what that post refers to.

A manual lens with mechanical aperture have intinite aperture steps, allowing you to make smooth changes to the aperture.

A good fly-by-wire aperture ring tries to emulate these infinite small steps by using small enough jumps in aperture.

A bad fly-by-wire ring (such as the Sigma one) makes huge jumpy 1/3 steps no matter how carefully and smoothly you adjust the ring.
>>
>>3798067
>you're supposed to be holding it by the lens
That is stupid and impractical. Nobody walks around carrying their camera by the lens unless the lens is so big it has its own handle like that green Sigma thing
>And why aren't you using a strap?
I do when I need both hands to go for a piss. When not micturating I have a very nice grip which enables me to efficiently carry the camera and promptly bring it to my eye should the need arise. Funnily enough it was designed for that very purpose.
>>
File: mobile-banner.jpg (112 KB, 800x849)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>3798072
>Doubling down on holding a camera with right hand

You know how I know you don't know the first thing about photography? Imagine seeing someone holding a pen with a closed fist grip wrapped round a pen and claiming they're a writer.

>Nobody holds their camera by the lens
Except professional photographers, pic related.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3798075
More like that, you steaming great pudding.
Except I'm not an Italian wedding photographer that is just an example. I'm much better looking and not such a poser

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark IV
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
PhotographerFILIPPO CIAMPOLI
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6720
Image Height4480
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:07:22 10:50:58
Exposure Time1/2500 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias-1/3 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length120.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1680
Image Height1120
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3797892
But then again you'd have to shoot a rangefinder
>>
>>3798069
1/3rd steps are really bad.
>>
>>3798085
only faggots hold their camera like that.
>>
>>3798070
>>3798089
I've used vintage lenses from approx 70s & 80s. And the 1/3 stop stuff seemed to normal to me. I was under the impression that the precise selection was more as a result of auto-aperture in modern lenses, with the majority of modern manual lenses featuring stops, and smooth movement being limited to lenses targeted at videographers, sometimes with T stops being given in addition to F stops.

I think it's Kowa who make lenses that have 1/3 stop f numbers, and smooth t stop numbers, and you switch between them by a button.
>>
>>3798113
Technically for photography it's hardly an issue but with modern techniques there's no real excuse for having 1/3rd stops.
>>
>>3798113
>I think it's Kowa who make lenses that have 1/3 stop f numbers, and smooth t stop numbers, and you switch between them by a button.
Have a look at the recent mirrorless art prime lenses from Sigma.
Because that's exactly what they have now.

But it's just not as good as Sony, Zeiss, Voigtlander options.(Some of these are real mechanical apertures)
>>
>>3798097
Is that the best you can come up with?
>>
>>3798142
I came up your dad and even I'm not a big enough faggot to hold my camera like that
>>
File: internet badass.jpg (118 KB, 680x511)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
>>3798061
>I want something hefty that I can get a good form grip on for when I swing it at the heads of pompous pillocks like you.
how old are you, 12?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width680
Image Height511
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2011:11:10 16:33:35
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width680
Image Height511
>>
File: doubt.png (85 KB, 492x280)
85 KB
85 KB PNG
>>3798085
>I'm much better looking
You write like a sweaty neckbeard with delusions of grandeur.
>>
>>3797961
>They always jump in big 1/3 steps
>>3798070
>makes huge jumpy 1/3 steps
>>3798124
>with modern techniques there's no real excuse for having 1/3rd stops.
Are you mad lads baiting or have you actually gone insane?
1/3rd of a stop is "huge jump"? Your ISO is calibrated to within 1/3rd of a stop.
In older cameras, the spec for the shutter speeds was accuracy to within 1/3rd of a stop when the leave the factory.

What exactly do you think you'll be getting with smaller increments?
Even in the film days intermediate values were used rarely, maybe sometimes when shooting slide. And by intermediate I mean half stops, let alone less than 1/3rd of a stop. So rare was their use in fact, that people complained that Zeiss rf lenses had third stops instead of half stops. Imagine complaining that 1/3rd of a stop ain't enough.
>>
>>3798179
It makes a difference for video work.

Of course, for photography it's irrelevant. But it's something that is worth noting since these lenses are multipurpose.
>>
>>3798232
For what like manual fades etc. or just exposure?
I guess the main issue is that it's a photography lens and not a cine one, that clickless aperture option on modern photo lenses is a recent feature.
Does it actually make that much difference even in video though? I mean even when adjusting exposure and you need to go up or down 2+ stops in a second or two, aperture changes too quickly to notice third stops.
A bigger issue would be how accurate/smooth is the whole drive-by-wire system.
>>
>>3798061
after all, the camera IS an extension of your phallus
>>
>>3798242
>Does it actually make that much difference even in video though?
This is the level of granularity I aim for: https://youtu.be/-UKR8DZ7a8Y?t=56

Anothing is when you have a high precision ND system like that one, you really need a mechanical aperture to play along with it as well.
Or some by-wire lens that can get close to it.

>that clickless aperture option on modern photo lenses is a recent feature.
Recent for Sigma's lenses, but not for the native e-mounts.
>>
File: images (4).jpg (19 KB, 554x554)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>3797676
God, I cant stand that shill.

Which brand has the worst youtube shills?
>>
>>3798252
WHAT'S UP HYBRID SHOOTERS
>>
>>3798148
Necrophiliac too, eh?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.