[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 / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [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 29 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]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: P7140732.jpg (804 KB, 1120x1400)
804 KB
804 KB JPG
film fag here. i wanna move into digital. i have a good amount of fd lenses, and various other vintage lenses, that id like to keep using. i need a camera that isnt overly big, and i dont need any fancy features. my budget is 500$. i will buy used.
pic related is from some p anon

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelTG-6
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
PhotographerThat TG6 Guy
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Color Filter Array Pattern994
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2912
Image Height3640
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:08:10 19:50:04
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias-0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.50 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1120
Image Height1400
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastSoft
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
why are you moving to digital
what do you want out of a digital camera

obviously mirrorless is the way to go. $500 gets you pretty dang close to a used Nikon Z5. they're selling for $600-$700 used on eBay
>>
>>3938036
Some FF mirrorless
all of them works
>>
>>3938045
does it have to be full frame? i thought speed booster adapters did just as good a job?
>>
>>3938041
i just wanna be able to take a million pictures im sick of film.
why is a mirrorless obviously the way to go? genuinely asking, i dont really see what they offer that a dslr cant.
>>
>>3938036
Sony 6000
>>
>>3938074
adaptability of more lenses due to the short flange distance

that is all
>>
>>3938074
like other anon said, mirrorless have shorter flange distance which allows you to use an adapter to mount your vintage lenses. dslrs with typical canon/nikon mount won't let you mount most vintage lenses because the flange distance is too long.

>>3938073
its annoying as fuck having all your lenses 'change' focal length due to crop sensors. that nice 50mm you like using? ya, now it's a 75mm bitch.
>>
>>3938073
No
get an A7/A7ii if you want it cheap(ish or relatively speaking anyways)
>>3938081
He was talking about speed boosters, they do the job, but man they're expensive (for the ones that does not suck but still quite not the same as FF)
>>
>>3938083
>get an A7/A7ii
why would he get a camera from 5+ years ago and not a nikon z5 from <2 years ago for the same price?
>>
>>3938103
yeah don't bother with any a7 series released before the IIIs.
>>
>>3938103
>>3938113
why bother with new cameras at all if he's coming from film?

get an old 5d or something like that, it has all the functionality of a film camera but it goes BRRRRRRR photos on demand
>>
>>3938115
I don't think a 5D fits the criterion of "not overly big" considering the current market including mirrorless cameras.
>>
>>3938117
ok, get a smaller body then, who cares, they all produce more or less the same image
>>
>>3938115
>>3938121
you somehow missed the fact they have a bunch of legacy lenses,
>>
>>3938103
it's cheap
but if money is not an issue, sure get the newest shit
>>
>>3938115
5D won't mount FD lenses unless you modify both the lens and the camera
You have to remove the lens mount and replace it with a machined or 3d printed EF mount because it has to be 2mm or so closer to the sensor so there's 0 space for an adapter
Then when you take a picture the mirror will hit the rear element with most lenses so you have to shave it down a bit.
I did that to my second 5D that I got super cheap because the mirror had fallen off, really love the results I get with that and the 50/1.4 SSC but it would be way easier to go mirrorless
>>
>>3938131
im saying the cost of a sony a7ii = the cost of a nearly new nikon z5
>>
File: _DSC3566.jpg (550 KB, 667x1000)
550 KB
550 KB JPG
>>3938036
Get the original Sony a7 and a cheap E>FD adapter and you're all set. Mine was $500 used and I'm 100% satisfied with it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3725
Image Height5587
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:09:11 19:26:27
Exposure Time1/2000 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness3.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width667
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3938135
>>3938126
examples, not suggestions
>>
>>3938041
>>3938041
You mean Nikon Z50? Used Z5 are still $1k
>>
>>3938139
like where lol
>>
>>3938103
i dont give a shit when its from i just want a decent camera. i have a fuji x100 and the pictures straight out the camera honestly looks better than the newest cameras coming out imo. im not printing anything big, i just need a digital camera with a viewfinder in the middle.

>>3938083
>>3938135
>>3938148

after realizing how expensive speed boosters are, i am now leaning towards a sony a7, though id prefer a fuji because it has the dials on the top of the camera. in general i feel like any camera now takes the same pictures, but ive heard some horror stories of vignette problems on the a7.

whats a good 15mm lens for less than 250$ used? for either of them
>>
>>3938418
as long as you're okay with that crop, sure get Fujis
IDK anything about the vignette problem on the A7
>>
>>3938418
a7 has a programmable scrolly ring plus the other wheels, mine is set to ISO so I have dial control of aperture/shutter/ISO without touching menus. It’s even faster than having all 3 on top. Never had vignetting issues on mine, although obviously it depends on your lens. Not trying to shill, but if you get a Fuji you will be paying more for a crop sensor and worse vintage lens adaptability
>>
>>3938418
>vignette problems on the a7
literally just people memeing, it's a non-issue. 100% made up.
>>
>>3938442
>>3938445
thanks for the serious replies, and not being brand faggots
>>
>>3938442
can you set the scrolly wheel to shutter speed?
and how is it faster than having the on the top? do you change settings while looking through the viewfinder?
>>
>>3938418
>but ive heard some horror stories of vignette problems on the a7.

Lenses that vignette like a motherfucker on my A7:

Canon FD 35mm 2.8
Canon FD 28mm 2.8
Voigtlander M mount 35mm 2.5
Voigtlander M mount 40mm 1.4
Voigtlander M mount 25mm 4
>>
>>3938453
You cannot, since the wheel on the front of the grip already controls shutter speed. & It’s faster because you can move ISO/aperture with your thumb and shutter speed with your index finger at the same time, rather than having to grab and adjust exposure wheels one at a time with your off hand. Therefore, it’s easy peasy to adjust while looking through the EVF
>>
>>3938459
well this changes things, i really hate vignette. could you post some examples? i heard sony has like a built in vignette correction? and how easy is it to correct the vignette in post?

>>3938469
i see, that actually sounds better.

another question, as ive understood it, some sony´s are moe geared towards vdeo, but they all look the same? how do i identify the one meant for photography primarily?
>>
File: BoatFluke.jpg (191 KB, 1000x667)
191 KB
191 KB JPG
>>3938677
Sure, here's my A7 with Canon FD 28/2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:08:09 19:34:36
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Brightness4.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC01695.jpg (1.78 MB, 1600x1067)
1.78 MB
1.78 MB JPG
>>3938677
A7 with Voigt 25/4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:09:13 08:12:12
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Brightness0.6 EV
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1067
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastSoft
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC01467.jpg (897 KB, 1600x1067)
897 KB
897 KB JPG
>>3938677
A7 with Voigt 35/2.5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:09:13 08:14:17
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness4.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1067
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastSoft
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3938036
What the hell is this place
>>
>>3938682
>>3938684
>>3938686
thanks for posting. fuck me that is really bad. can you fix something like that in post? is thee any way a different adapter could solve it? i really like my FD 28/2.8... what about your other lenses, are they as bad?

>>3938697
imagine you never had any dslr´s. imagine youve never really used a digital camera.
>>
>>3938677
>>>3938459
I have used manual lenses with Sony A7II and A7R3.

A Sony can correct vignetting when it communicates with the lens and thus knows the amount of correction needed. There is no communication with a manual lens of course.

Sony IBIS will work with manual lenses. A7II and later FF have IBIS, also some APS-C like the A6500. You must enter the focal length of the manual lens for it to work.

Programming a button for focus magnification is very useful and can compliment focus peaking.

I think you will love it.
>>
>>3938699
it's well known that rangefinder lenses, especially wide angle ones, do not perform well on Sony cameras because of the thick sensor stack. see https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/ for details.

but as long as you're using an SLR lens, you're not going to get any extra vignetting. realize that the mount diameter is bigger than the original mount, so the mount can't cause vignetting like idiot trolls claim. the flange distance with an adapter is the same as with the native mount; it's just empty space instead of a mirror. any vignetting you see with SLR lenses is native to the lens itself and has nothing to do with the Sony camera. the only way it could have anything to do with the Sony camera would be if the sensor was somehow less light sensitive at the edges, which it certainly is not.

>>3938677
>how do i identify the one meant for photography primarily?
the a7 series is for all purpose shooting. the a7r series is for high resolution photos. the a7s series is for video. the a9 series is for fast action shooting. the a1 is the super high end pro camera.
>>
>>3938459
I could post an A7II + FD50mm F1.4 pic later, but can someone tell me whether or not the EXIF artist and copyright info is filtered out? And how does the poster make the EXIF data available (or not)? I've never posted a photo here before because of this uncertainty. Thanks.
>>
>>3938786
Ahh. Silly me. I see that I entered the artist and copyright info into my A7R3. The A7II does not have this feature, so I will use that camera. But still, how does one make the EXIF available (or not)? Thanks.
>>
>>3938794
>>3938786
either you change it in the export settings of Lightroom/whatever you use, you can include all EXIF, or only some, or you just right-click the JPG before uploading, go to properties, and delete the info you don't want to be included.
>>
>>3938735
thank you so much anon, this one reply saved me probably hours of research. never thought id learn so much so quick.

>realize that the mount diameter is bigger than the original mount, so the mount can't cause vignetting like idiot trolls claim.

do you mean that the mount on the vintage lens will be bigger than the mount hole on the sony body?

>the flange distance with an adapter is the same as with the native mount; it's just empty space instead of a mirror. any vignetting you see with SLR lenses is native to the lens itself and has nothing to do with the Sony camera. the only way it could have anything to do with the Sony camera would be if the sensor was somehow less light sensitive at the edges, which it certainly is not.

why dont i see vignetting on my film pictures with those lenses?
>>
>>3938735
This makes no sense. Of course SLR lenses can vignette on a Sony. Why would rangefinder lenses cause it and SLR lenses not? They are both using an adapter to get the lens to the correct distance away from the sensor. Your logic here
>the flange distance with an adapter is the same as with the native mount; it's just empty space instead of a mirror.

Is the same as the logic of how an RF lens brings in light. The Canon FD 28 and 35 do not vignette on my film cameras yet they do on my A7.
>>
>>3938442
If you are used to old film cameras then the Fuji is your best bet, the dials are great as long as you actually understand how to shoot manual which is a given for the age of cameras you are talking about. I’ve got an adapter, not speed booster, for all my old Nikon glass. I’ll probably pick up a speed booster at some point too.
>>
>>3938885
>do you mean that the mount on the vintage lens will be bigger than the mount hole on the sony body?
ok I fucked up here, the sony mount is actually a little bit smaller but it still shouldn't cause any vignette issues because it's not like the lens sends the image back using the entire width of the mount.
>why dont i see vignetting on my film pictures with those lenses?
because you're stopping down? stopping down on digital will reduce vignetting, too. they should be the same. the difference is on digital, you if you get vignetting, you can just drag a slider to the side in post and correct it.

>>3938887
>Why would rangefinder lenses cause it and SLR lenses not?
the issues are caused by the sensor stack thickness which I already said. and it's mostly blurring, not vignette. literally just read the article I linked.
>>
>>3938914
it's not like the lens sends the image back using the entire width of the mount.

>so then there should be just a little bit of a crop factor right?

also i usually shoot wide open on my film camera and i never had any vignette
>>
>>3938940
I don't know what you're quoting. there will be no crop factor because crop factor only applies when you are changing the sensor size. using a full frame camera you'll have the same sensor size as 35mm film.
>>
>>3938810
Thanks for the explanation. Here goes.
Pic data:
Sony A7II, all manual control, ISO 50, 1/5000 sec. Canon FD 50mm at F1.4. No filter, no lens shade. Fotasy FD-A7II adapter.
Sharpness much improved at F2.8, great at F4.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareILCE-7M2 v4.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:09:13 15:26:10
Exposure Time1/5000 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating50
Brightness7.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1067
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3938914
>the issues are caused by the sensor stack thickness which I already said. and it's mostly blurring, not vignette. literally just read the article I linked.
I did. Why does sensor thickness matter for RF lenses but then doesn't for SLR lenses? Why do my SLR still vignette like a mofo on my A7 when they don't vignette on my film cameras? You haven't answered these questions and neither does the article.
>>
>>3938979
the article literally explains it. it has to do with focal plane bending, which occurs because the flange distance is low. combined with the thick stack of glass, it alters the focal plane.
I don't know how or why you are seeing so much vignetting but I don't have this issue and I can't find anybody online who is reporting serious issues with vignetting on E mount with vintage lenses. and it isn't as if a lot hasn't been written about the subject... there's a ton of discussion about doing it out there, and yet nobody is complaining about it but you.
>>
>>3938699
The large exposure latitude of film accounts for some of this difference. Also illumination of pixels at the corners can suffer from a higher angle of incidence. This is called 'fill factor', evidently. It can be fixed in post.
>>
>>3938036
The consensus on this board is anything but a Sony, they vignette and break so easily.
>>
File: canikony virgin.jpg (89 KB, 968x1378)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>>3938986
this is the retarded troll kind that I'm talking about.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3938981
>>3938984
I mean, this anon just posted an image with an SLR 50mm that is showing tons of vignetting too >>3938984

Im just providing concrete examples of lenses adapted on my Sony for FD lenses cause ya, that shit vignettes. It's not due to film latitude because I mostly shoot slide film...which shows no vignetting.
>>
>>3938987
I made that image lmao
>>
File: 20210914-1.jpg (737 KB, 2250x1500)
737 KB
737 KB JPG
>>3938992
here's a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Ai at f/1.8 with a cheap Fotodiox adapter on my a7iii. there's about 1.1 stops of vignetting, which is entirely in line with what I'd expect from a vintage lens wide open whether it be on digital or film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M3
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Brightness-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width2250
Image Height1500
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 20210914-2.jpg (678 KB, 2250x1500)
678 KB
678 KB JPG
>>3938992
>>3939418
and here's the same lens stopped down to f/2.8. now we've got about 1/3 stop of vignetting, showing it was mostly a result of the lens being shot wide open.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M3
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating800
Brightness-2.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width2250
Image Height1500
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 20210914-3.jpg (636 KB, 2250x1500)
636 KB
636 KB JPG
>>3938992
>>3939419
same lens at f/4. vignetting is all but gone. 1/10 of a stop at most.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M3
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating2500
Brightness-3.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width2250
Image Height1500
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 20210914-4.jpg (675 KB, 2250x1500)
675 KB
675 KB JPG
>>3938992
>>3939420
and finally, at f/5.6. again vignetting is basically gone at this point. so I dunno, but I can't reproduce this "issue."

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M3
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating5000
Brightness-4.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width2250
Image Height1500
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3939421
>but I can't reproduce this "issue."
You are using a standard F-mount lens made for long flanges, the other guy was using a M-mount made for special "microlenses" and smaller image circle to fuck their users out of optical glass.
Still i don't know why some Sony lenses have the same issues.
>>
>>3939425
because it's trivial to correct for vignetting and so it's an acceptable compromise in lens design.
>>
>>3939428
>it's trivial to compromise vignetting in lens design
But how much is too much?
>>
>>3939441
that's going to be a factor of cost and other parts of lens design. if you can make a faster lens that you can market at a lower aperture but with more vignetting, I see how that can be attractive as a manufacturer. and if customers will buy it, why not? especially if it can be corrected easily. obviously there's a practical limit. nobody is releasing lenses with like 10 stops of vignette or anything.
>>
>>3938036
what lenses? if its canon ultrasonic EF lenses then get a 5d mk ii or similar. if its old vintage shit like FD or manual minolta then get a sony or nikon full frame mirrorless
>>
>>3938036
a7c or fuji xpro3
>>
>>3938081

Are you stupid? The focal length is a physical measurement and doesn't change. The aperture is relative to the focal length so that doesn't change either. The lens generates an image circle and the sensor / film simply crops a piece of it to record the information.
>>
>>3939568
Thank you for educating us on how focal length works. Now, please take your autism elsewhere. We all know what people mean when they multiply the FL on a crop camera.

>>3938684
Is that you, Epson rangefinder?
>>
>>3939425
I'm talking about the vignetting I get from FD lenses though.

>>3939568
>Are you stupid?
No, you're taking what I said and making it something I didn't say. You're the stupid one I guess.

>>3939634
Yes
>>
>>3939568
>Are you stupid? The focal length is a physical measurement and doesn't change.
He even put 'change' in quotes to make it clear that he understands that and was talking about equivalents rather than physical focal length. You're the one who's an idiot here.
>>
new question, ive used an x100 in the past. it had beautiful noise. absolutely lovely. can the newer fujis or sonys compare? i feel like a sony would put less thought into nice "grain" or noise since their users are generally looking for stiffer, more clear looking images.

pic related
>>
>>3939931
i dont care much for image sharpness or megapixels. im still leaning towards a sony just because it seems like theres a lot more room for experimentation with their mirrorless bodies. i have an fd lens with a broken focus ring for example and it produces these really soft haze pictures. i would prefer a real viewfinder though, is there no dslr that can take vintage lenses like a mirrorless body? are canon cameras more compatible with vintage canon lenses?

more x100 noise
>>
File: DSCF7586.jpg (4.07 MB, 4288x2848)
4.07 MB
4.07 MB JPG
>>3939933
full pic for comparison
unedited jpg

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelFinePix X100
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix X100 Ver2.11
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:13 22:09:38
Exposure Time1/170 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness1.5 EV
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length23.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4288
Image Height2848
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeOn
Macro ModeOn
Focus ModeManual
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeAperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
File: Screenshot (147).png (709 KB, 3840x2160)
709 KB
709 KB PNG
>>3939933
The issue with dslr is the different mount flange distances. Most mirrorless cameras have a very short distance which means it can use longer flanges. The only other option is to use a dslr with a mount that has been around for a while (nikon f, pentax k, ect.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
>>
>>3939968
>can use longer flanges
via adapters
>>3939933
>are canon cameras more compatible with vintage canon lenses?
I should have finished reading your post but yes they will. Depending on the body and lens it might only work in manual and aperture priority.
>>
>>3939970
FD Canon mount is shorter than EF Canon mount, that's why many switched Nikon back in the day out of spite, it was a massive deal breaker because FD glass was expensive but also very good.
>>
>>3939971
thanks for correcting me I just assumed, my bad
>>
>>3939968
>he listens to music on youtube
oh no no no anon
>>3939933
>>3939934
shame about your dead pixel(s)
>>
>>3939983
>shame about your dead pixel(s

kek i never noticed, thanks a lot now i cant unsee it...
>>
>>3939973
>thanks for correcting me I just assumed, my bad

Why do people do this shit. Someone asking for advice and someone comes along and answers as if they know when really they're just fucking guessing. If you don't know, just shit the fuck up!
>>
new question. i really like the square/medium format look. ive heard if you put a crop sensor lens on a sony theres an option where the sensor crops into a crop sensor. is it possible to crop it into a square, or set up a square guideline so i can compose the shot as a square?
>>
>>3940275
you are mixing up aspect ratio, which is the relationship between width and height of the image frame, with crop factor, which deals with the difference between different sensor sizes. APS-C and full frame sensors both have a 2:3 aspect ratio so that won't change the aspect ratio. it just reduces the area of the sensor you can use for pictures.

there is no way to change the aspect ratio on a sony other than to set it to 16:9 I believe. if you want a square crop, you have to do it in post.
>>
>>3940285
no, what i mean is the sony will literally turn of half the pixels to accommodate a crop lens. at least i saw that in a youtube video.
>>
>>3940332
I know. it's actually more than half the pixels, FYI. but like I said, that brings the effective sensor area from a 35mm full frame size to an APS-C size, but does not change the aspect ratio, which will remain 2:3 in both modes.





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.