[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]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 8489953251.jpg (1.01 MB, 2700x2025)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
Are there any R5 shooters here? Do you like it better than you liked the 5DS R?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Camera Raw 12.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:07:08 14:11:46
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/10.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/10.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Anyone????
>>
>>3963850
You think anyone here can afford the best camera tech available presently?
>>
>>3963850
Do you think you could shoot better photos with the r5? probably not, don't bother.
>>
>>3963851
Some of us have careers anon
>>
>>3963850
It's a slow board and you didn't even wait two hours for a response.
Learn some patience, zoomer.
>>
>>3963828
I've got the R5 but never used the 5DS. I upgraded from a 5D IV.
Just the speed of it and the better autofocusing (eye detect + DPAF) alone makes things so much easier in a lot of ways.

There are some really good lenses for RF, too. They aren't exactly cheap, though.
I mean, I wouldn't call them good value for money. But the RF 28-70 f/2.0 and the 100-500 are really nice.
>>
>>3964517
If you want value for money, I'd probably suggest a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 + one of the 100-400's.
I still use an EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II. I don't think the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is worth it, unless maybe you're flying somewhere with it and you need to cut down on the weight.
>>
>>3964519
Take into account that you are dealing with a 45mp sensor here, you ought to pust the best glass in front.
>>
>>3964535
Well, you would want at least high end EF glass. And the lenses I suggested qualify.
Obviously the RF glass is usually better.

Although I'm not sure the RF version of the 70-200 is noticeably better than the EF Mark II. The advantage of the RF version is that it's smaller and lighter.
>>
>>3964535
Is 45MP even needed unless you're planning on doing huge prints?
>>
>>3964659
One of the advantages is that it allows you to frame your images more easily by going wider and then cropping.
>>
>>3964538
>Obviously the RF glass is usually better.
It's not. The RF 24-70, 70-200, and 100-500 are optically very similar to the most recent EF versions. Canon pushed features on these lenses (IS, collapsible, extra 100mm) for this reason. The EF 16-35 f/2.8L III is actually a touch sharper than its RF counterpart, though it lacks IS. If I was buying new I would get the RF 16-35, but if I already owned the EF mark III I would never upgrade. Not worth the cash difference. (I actually have the f/4L IS version and have no plans to upgrade at this time.)

The f/1.2L primes offer much, much better IQ than their EF counterparts. With those two lenses you would want to upgrade to the RF versions.

Basically if Canon recently revised the optical formula of the EF version, you're not going to see a significant IQ gain on the RF version. If the EF version was old (i.e. the f/1.2L primes) then there will be a large gain.
>>
>>3963828
>Are there any R5 shooters here? Do you like it better than you liked the 5DS R?
For stills: the RF is the faster camera and has more intelligent AF. It's about 1ev cleaner at high ISO, and gives you about 2ev more shadow recovery at base ISO.

That said: overall IQ is the same across most of the ISO range. And while the 5DsR has flappy mirror AF, the AF is very fast/confident so long as you can keep an AF point on the subject. If you know how to work DSLR AF the 5DsR will not let you down. AI tracking with all points active is not nearly as intelligent as mirrorless, but there are situations where it works pretty well.

For video: no contest, the 5DsR has no real video features, not even usable AF, though it actually dose produce decent 1080p.
>>
>>3964681
>One of the advantages is that it allows you to frame your images more easily by going wider and then cropping.
You should never do that.
>>
>>3964751
don't tell me how to use my camera
>>
>>3963828
A 5DS is a fine camera, but it feels super slow and old to use. Doesn't even have a touchscreen, takes fucking ages writing giant files to cf cards.
R5 feels like a super fast modern camera. Instant and accurate AF, heaps of FPS, very slick quiet shutter.
No comparison.
>>
>>3963828
If I get this big juicy promotion I'm gunning for I might buy one as a christmas present for myself. I'll let you know after that.
>>
>>3964751
Weird how many great photographers do that
>>
>>3964519
What do you think of the G2 24-70? I have this lens and I'm not a super big fan and was considering the RF 24-70 to replace it.
>>
>>3965012
This post made me sad
>>
>>3965055
IMO, the Tamron 24-70 G2 is the best you can get for the price.
The RF version is a better lens. It's overall sharper, it focuses faster, and unlike the EF mark II, it has IS.

Definitely go for the RF version over the EF mark II.
That said, is it worth double the price of the Tamron? I'd say you could argue either way.
>>
>>3965073
That's what I find, that the G2 24-70 focuses quite slow compared to the RF. Contrastingly, I also have the G2 70-200 and it focuses near instantly, at the very least on par with the RF.
>>
>>3965073
>Definitely go for the RF version over the EF mark II.
It's not any sharper than the EF II. If you're buying new and have the cash, sure, get the RF version for the IS. Combined with IBIS it will give you insane stabilization. If you already own the EF II? Keep what you've got, IBIS will give you some stabilization where you had none before. Put the cash saved towards something else.

Buying new on a budget? Tamron is a good choice.
>>
>>3965061
Why is that, anon?
>>
>>3965228
I guess that like anon wants this thing to enjoy his creative outlet and needs a bonus to get it. Or maybe I should be happy that he’s getting the bonus and will be able to? Dunno I just wish more people didn’t have to like lust over such basic stuff. I feel like anyone with a salaried position should be able to get themselves a prosumer level camera without requiring a bonus or using their tax return etc. Modern capitalism has people excited over the potential for a little luxury like this. I hope anon gets his R5 and takes lots of photos with it tho.
>>
>>3963828
no, just get a 5DSR and a Zeiss Milvus and you'll come out miles ahead in savings

the R5 was made for zoomer gearfags, so unless that description fits you id look into something that's not fucking retarded
>>
>>3965256
Kek getting the R5 would be pure indulgence, no need to feel sad for me. Thanks though, I'll get it or a similar toy for sure one day, maybe when the mk2 has come out.
>>
>>3965334
Get it now then life’s short.
>>
Got the R5 plus the 24-70 f/2.8 recently. Got it to invest in freelance and my photo/video job. An upgrade from the canon 80d.

Probably the best thing I did in terms of putting old lenses and equipment on the shelf and literally just using these two products.

Firstly the AF is unreal. Using AF-on and constantly getting clear and sharp shots if need be is great. Very easy to just run and gun with it. Eye detection is great and soon they will be an update on the AF and a car detection setting as well.

I tried it out at night with low lighting. Bringing up the ISO to 8000 and there wasn't that much graininess to the picture.

I can go on at how great the camera is, but I'm comparing it to my 80D which really there is none.
>>
>>3965083
>That's what I find, that the G2 24-70 focuses quite slow compared to the RF
Although I wouldn't say that the Tamron G2 is slow to autofocus. It's still reasonably quick.
I'd say it's faster and more accurate at autofocusing than the Sigma, which is probably the main reason I'd recommend it over the Sigma.
>>
>>3965408
I've had the G2 24-70 and G2 70-200 for a few years, I really like both, let me disclaim.

The 24-70 does focus fast, or what was considered fast in 2017. The RF does focus near instantaneously, however, judging by reviews, and has somewhat better PQ through the focal range, especially at 70mm. I'm considering selling my G2 24-70 to help fund an RF 24-70 because I think the difference is quite stark.

The G2 70-200 is basically just as good optically and focusing speed-wise as the RF 70-200, though. I'm keeping that G2 70-200 because it's really unreal how good it is for the price.
>>
>>3964751
What's wrong with that?
>>
>>3965478
It's something he can't do with *his* camera.
>>
USMC Combat Camera here, we have gotten a couple loaner pieces of gear from Canon. got to shoot with an R5. Compared to my issued 1dx and my personal EOS RP, its like photography on easy mode. tremendous camera. i turned off the front ring control though
>>
>>3963851
Some of us have neetbux anon
>>
>>3965622
I use the control ring for aperture.
>>
>>3965731
Yuck. Are you also a Fuji owner or cross-dress on the weekends (but I repeat myself)?
>>
>>3965478
>>3965479
It's also kind of lazy. For a professional it makes sense, but for your own photos it just means you don't pay attention because "I'll fix it later". It's for people looking for their purchases to be a solution to their problems
>>
>>3965737
The fuck is this shit? Some kind of projection?
>>
>>3965739
Remember kids, if you don't have literally everything set to manual, you're lazy and not a real photographer.
What do you need fancy features like eye detect AF for? You're supposed to manually focus every time.
>>
>>3965762
That's a false dichotomy, but you can at least frame your shots properly. If you're buying a top-of-the-line camera, surely you can at least use a zoom and get things framed the right way? Or do you literally just point the camera at a thing, spastically click the shutter release button, and hope and pray you get something decent out of it? Again, this seems like someone who just expects their gear to do the work for them. It's almost like your hobby then is cameras and not photography.
Again, professionals need not reply because you're playing a different game
>>
>>3965816
If you have high end gear, you get to use its features to your advantage, whatever they may be.
If you can't do that with your camera, that's your problem.
>>
>>3965828
Tech is crutch. If you don't know how to take a good photo with full manual hong kong lens attacked to a kitchen sink acting as a camera, then you'll never be able to take a good photo at all.
>>
>>3965828
I'm just saying, if your extras features mean you're less involves in taking pictures, maybe you ought to consider why that's your choice. Extra features help you get shots you otherwise wouldn't be able to get, which is great for professionals, but for a hobbyist really isn't necessary. If you WANT those features, okay, but I'll restate what I mentioned above: why is photography your hobby if you want to be less involved in taking your photos? If all your decisions are made by the camera and the one thing that you still have in your control you go, "ah, I'll figure it out later".
It doesn't make sense to me, unless you're a working professional whose job is just getting *a* shot of a thing or event with as much flexibility as possible. How much flexibility do you need in a leisure activity? Why do you need all this help in order to participate in your leisure activity? I'm assuming here, but I have the suspicion that your reason for wanting all these features is either that you want to pretend to be a professional or yoy want to dump loads of cash into a high-end toy. Fine enough if that's what you want to do, but telling someone to take the lazy route in practicing their own hobby (which I would also assume they want to get good at) is just poor, advice; it puts all the decisions as an afterthought

>>3965840
Pictured: a working professional
>>
>>3965850
Or maybe the fact that I don't have to wrestle with gear limitations means I can spend more time thinking about other aspects of the image.
Maybe you spend too much effort thinking about what other people do with their gear than you spend on your own photos.
>>
File: 1636805464463.jpg (46 KB, 600x600)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>3965854
Yeah, we all know that's not the case.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:09:29 06:13:44
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width600
Image Height600
>>
>>3965864
At least, that is what you like to keep telling yourself.
>>
>>3965854
I mean, if you wrestle with composition and framing so much that you just snap and crop to get what you want, with any fequency (enough that you suggest it as a selling point of the camera), you either have a god damn good reason or you're just not good at framing. Hardly seems to me like your concentrating on other aspects of the photo. What aspects are you concentrating on at that point?
>>
>>3963828
Just buy a used 5d mark 2 my dude shit I'm rolling with an RP that cost me 800 and still feel like I over spent

That latest and greatest thing is for major companies and bugmen
>>
>>3965871
> I mean, if you wrestle with composition and framing so much
You what? The point is that I'm not wrestling with it.
Just take the L instead of getting angry over how other people take advantage of the features of their gear.
>>
>>3965881
Well, if you have to crop your snaps to get good framing then maybe you are avoiding a wrestle. But maybe you're just not good at wrestling
I think you're seeing me as angrier than I am about you personally. That's not the case. I'm arguing against your bad advice. What's upsetting is that you think it's good advice. Practice wrestling and suddenly, wow, wrestling isn't a big deal anymore. Practice exposure, focus, framing, etc. and suddenly you won't have to crutch on your gear anymore to get your shots. That's my advice, as a counter to yours
>>
>>3965762
Manual everything, you are only balancing 3-4 parameters, I mean cmon. I treat focus like a game, learn to reflexively pull focus in and out as you change distance, start with a large depth of field and then up the difficulty as you improve. People can easily become godly at waste of time vidya, apply the same discipline to something fulfilling.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS RP
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:11:13 00:31:06
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating12800
Lens Aperturef/2.3
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6240
Image Height4160
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3965881
I mean features are cool but think of it from a business perspective can you afford two of those plus lenses plus other necessities

these cameras are amazing but they all essentially do the same thing. fuck I used to intern for a guy that shoots with a 5d mark ii and a rebel t7i none of his clients knew the difference or cared

>Bonus note
you can always rent one out for a day
>>
>>3965884
> Well, if you have to crop
I never said that I "have" to. But I certainly *can* do so.
You should stop getting angry at other people taking advantage of their gear, and start focusing on what *you're* doing instead.
>>
>>3965889
This is /p/, remember. People spend more time complaining about the gear other people use than actually going out and taking photos.
>>
>>3965889
Right now I'm countering bad advice. Avoid cropping if you can, because you have to frame in-camera then and you get better practice
Unless you want the basics to remain a wrestle
>>
>>3965892
>Right now I'm countering bad advice.
No you're not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cropping an image to frame it better.
You're just jealous that somebody else has better gear than you.
>>
File: 1630930903917.png (197 KB, 900x722)
197 KB
197 KB PNG
>>3965894
>No you're not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cropping an image to frame it better.
>You're just jealous that somebody else has better gear than you.

It does not saddens me tell you, that you're not going to make it with that attitude.
>>
>>3965895
You can say it all you want, it doesn't change reality.
The reality is that the real reason you're saying it is because you're trying to justify your own shortcomings.
>>
>>3965892
You're making a mountain out of a molehill here dude. Suppose you're in a situation where you can't 1.) "zoom with your feet" 2.) don't have the absolute perfect focal length, down to the millimeter, to get the absolute perfect framing. Or, alternatively, you don't have time to switch out lenses to get that "perfect" frame before the moment is gone. I get what you're saying, but you're inventing a mutually exclusive situation where it simply doesn't exist. No, cropping doesn't mean you suck at framing. Being able to fine tune your composition in post is a good way to practice it, if anything. Yeah, you probably wanna maximize your resolution by "getting it right in camera" most of the time, but it's really not going to matter if the photo looks better cropped, and nobody who's looking is going to care, besides other jaded photogs that like to argue and gatekeep like you are right now.
>>
>>3965895
There is not a single client that will look at a nice photo and ask themselves "did you take a larger photo and then crop into it to get this result?" let alone complain about it if the answer was "yes".
>>
File: 1636521574615.jpg (34 KB, 699x485)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>3965896
>No you're not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cropping an image to frame it better.
>You're just jealous that somebody else has better gear than you.
>You can say it all you want, it doesn't change reality.
>The reality is that the real reason you're saying it is because you're trying to justify your own shortcomings.

Read this again. And realize that you're acting like a spoiled brat throwing temper tantrum.
>>
>>3965899
You're complaining about how somebody else uses their gear....
>>
>>3965895
>>3965899
>he's down so bad he's posting frogs
Lmao. You're telling on yourself more than you think right now.
>>
>>3965898
This is very wrong.

I ask you for your portfolio.
I get twenty pictures in various resolutions.
I dump your portfolio into the bin and set it on fire.
>>
>>3965903
> I invent a hypothetical scenario that never actually happens in reality
> checkmate atheists
>>
>>3965903
People don't share portfolios in full res digitally retard.
>>
>>3965739
It's not lazy it's just another tool. I could say not taking full format wet plate pictures are lazy too. You're just being a boomer
>>
>>3965904
Uh, yeah, they actually do. It does not surprise me that you do not know that.
>>
>>3965912
Uh no they actually don't. You're a LARPer.
>>
>>3965894
It works, but you should try other things first. Even framing the shot in an alternate way.
>You're just jealous!!
No, I'm advocating for good practice

>>3965897
>mountain out of a molehill
Probably. I'm taking a stance opposite to the other anon. There are times when it works, but having the attitude that it doesn't matter encourages bad practice. I'm trying to make a point. Especially when his point is "you're jealous of my gears". Say that if you want, but I'm not jealous of your attitude, sweaty

>>3965898
>if you are a professional
If you're a professional, ignore what I'm saying because in that case literally all that matters is getting the shot for your client so you can get paid

>>3965909
It's a tool, but it shouldn't be something used to excess, in my opinion. Something about every problem looking like a nail if you like using hammers
>>
>>3965929
>No, I'm advocating for good practice
No you aint. You dug yourself a hole.
>>
>>3965929
>I'm trying to make a point
Your original post in response was "you should never do that". Never is a pretty concise, straight term. You said under no circumstances should anybody crop for composition ever, and made a strawman argument as to why.
>>
>>3965942
Your reasoning is not of the highest regard if you think that. The post you are alluding to was in regard to this post.
>>One of the advantages is that it allows you to frame your images more easily by going wider and then cropping.
It is falacy even if you do crop.
>>
>>3965903
Confirmed for zero industry experience
>>
>>3965944
Do you know for sure he was talking about cropping to fix bad composition vs cropping to mitigate the effects of lens corrections made in post, or anticipating a subject that is live and won't fit the frame "perfectly" every time?
>>
>>3965945
It's the truth, and it's making you mad. Portfolio is showcase of skill, if you're putting crops into it, it's showcasing your own lack of skill.
>>
>>3965949
You are definitely mad (and wrong). If you forego the use of a tool strictly on principle, you are wasting potential to improve your work.

Not every image requires the absolute maximum resolution of your camera. Not every capture is perfect, and sometimes that's just circumstance, not 'lack of skill'.
>>
>>3965949
Yeah again, zero industry experience lol
>>
>>3965944
Doing something that works is not a bad thing.
>>
File: Fujifilm-GFX-100-beauty02.jpg (947 KB, 2500x1666)
947 KB
947 KB JPG
Imagine being so stupid that you crop your high res photos haha. Even though 25% is still 25mp haha.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:05:17 16:33:52
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/14.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/14.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2500
Image Height1666
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3965936
I've considered this whole time that there's a valid use case for it, but I've been advocating that advising it generally is a bad idea because it's sloppier than just getting it right. Show me the hole

>>3965942
I never said "never," and, like >>3965944 pointed out, the post I was replying to seemed to advocate going wider and then cropping to get the right framing as a general practice. If that's not what the poster was saying then I guess there's egg on my face, but I'll be damned if it didn't read as "just go wide and crop to frame"; this is the bad advice I'm talking about, because it's sloppy
>>
What's a good wide lens so I can just zoom in with pixels? Specifically wanting to cover all my bases for birding and POV home porn vids.
>>
>>3966213
>I've considered this whole time that there's a valid use case for it, but I've been advocating that advising it generally is a bad idea
No, you're backpedalling after digging yourself a hole.
>>
>>3966310
I'm telling you to read instead of making shit up. I said from the beginning that if you just need to get the shot, then do what you have to do to get it. For all other situations, opting to frame it right, from the outset, is a better practice. I've said my part
>>
File: 1634521149793.gif (2.9 MB, 290x189)
2.9 MB
2.9 MB GIF
>>3966321
>I said from the beginning that if you just need to get the shot, then do what you have to do to get it.
Everyone has said that, samefagging dude is only one that did not get the point. It was fun watching his insanity.
>>
>>3966321
> I said from the beginning
No you didn't. You've backpedaled and changed your position.
>>
>>3966321
If you have the megapixels and a lens that can capture the detail, there is *nothing* wrong with taking advantage of it with cropping.
You're just complaining about those sour grapes.
>>
>>3966321
It's like complaining about a guy who buys a first class plane ticket so that they can spread their legs out, while a person with an economy ticket gets leg cramps.
Noo, you can't just spread your legs out! You're wasting space, I tell ya!
>>
>>3966436
I've mentioned the professional since the first post, who does this exact thing because they just need to get the shot. No, I didn't explicitly mention it, but that's what I meant when I said that professionals are playing a different game from the hobbyist

>>3966439
>sour grapes
Anon, you're making shit up. "Going wider and then cropping to frame" is lazy and sloppy. You can do it, I can't stop you, but it's sloppy and you should probably not do it if you don't have to, because it's sloppy, bad practice for actually getting good at framing

>>3966441
That's not at all what it is. It's like buying extra wood for a project, then not measuring your cuts precisely and having to waste wood. Like, okay, go for it, but you're not a good craftsman if you just chuck money and slop your way through because "you can" and "you're just mad that I have more money to spend on wood". No, spend your money on the wood, but I will call your craft sloppy because it is
>>
>>3966213
>I never said never
Your post quite literally said "you should never do that"
>>
>>3966447
> I've mentioned the professional since the first post
No. You said "never" in the first post.

> Anon, you're making shit up.
You're jealous that someone can do something with their camera that you can't do with yours.

> It's like buying extra wood for a project
No it's not, because a camera's sensor is reusable over and over again. Wood isn't.
If you crop a photo, the pixels you cropped out of that photo don't disappear from all your other photos.
Besides, most people downscale their photos anyway.
>>
>>3966474
I'm not that person

>>3966491
I'm not that person. I'm another person who said it's sloppy and you should avoid it, but I didn't say you should never do
>You're jealous that someone can do something with their camera that you can't do with yours.
>You're jealous of my bad habits
>

>No it's not
Yes it is, because the solution in both cases, apparently, is to spend extra so that you don't have to be as precise or careful. Again, it's your money, so be sloppy with it if you want, but I will maintain forever that framing right and not cropping later is the ideal solution, no matter what your sensor's resolution is
>>
>>3966649
> Yes it is, because the solution in both cases, apparently, is to spend extra so that you don't have to be as precise or careful.
The fact that you're making these assumptions about the reasons you would do it shows a lack of experience.
>>
>>3966649
Is it "lazy" to give a bigger margin for error when you're trying to capture a subject that's moving quickly?
Is it "lazy" to crop if you don't have the focal length on your lens to get as close as you want?
You should listen and think more instead of doubling down on digging yourself a hole.
>>
>>3966661
>Is it "lazy" to give a bigger margin for error when you're trying to capture a subject that's moving quickly?
Yes. Get good.
>Is it "lazy" to crop if you don't have the focal length on your lens to get as close as you want?
Yes. Get good and frame for your focal length.

It really does appear to me that you're a lazy photographer. And you acquired that laziness by relying on tech to bail you out. It'd do you good to follow advices you've received in this thread and start shooting without crop in mind. It really is good practice.
>>
>>3966661
Those are the situations I'm talking about where you do it if you need the shot. This isn't some dichotomy, this is saying that "go wide then crop" is bad as general advice. Obviously there are situations where you just do what you need to do, but that's not ideal. If all this is to way "you can do it if you need to" then yeah, you're absolutely right. But the original comment I was targeting really seemed to mean it as general advice for whatever you might want to shoot, which would be sloppy
>>
>>3966649
>I'm not that person
Liar.
>>
>>3966664
You're obviously one of those people who doesn't actually do photography. You just think about it while shitposting on /p/.
>>
>>3966665
You've changed your position such that you're now pretending your position was always actually the position of the guy you were arguing against.
>>
>>3966667
>>3966670
>>3966674
What do you think you've to gain by flooding the thread? It's a slow board and you're only idiot with your misguided opinions. I'd tell you to grow up, but I'm assuming you're childish by nature.
>>
>>3966678
What do you think you gain from deflecting, or doubling down on your stupidity? Just take the L and move on.
>>
>>3966664
Holy fuck lmao. Cropping as a solution to not having a lens is lazy? I'm supposed to go to B&H and order next day air for a lens then go back? Fucking idiot lmao.
>>
>>3966690
>lmao
>lmao

You sound mad
>>
>>3966690
How can you be so bad at plain reading? It's really hard to comprehend. Through the whole thread, you're constantly pulling wrong conclusions out of what was said.
>>
>>3966697
Lmao not at all

>>3966698
>Just frame your focal length
Fucking idiot lmao, if the optimal frame is cropped within an existing lens and you haven't another solution, you crop the fucking picture. Absolutely fucking brain dead.
>>
>>3966690
>Cropping
Lazy itself
>>
>>3966703
The only thing lazy in this thread is your dipshit replies
>>
>>3966667
>>Liar
>No, there can't be multiple people disagreeing with my opinion on this anonymous image board! I know it's just one!
I'm >>3965739 but not >>3964751

>>3966674
My position is the same; going wide and then cropping later to frame the shot is lazy and sloppy practice. If you just have to make it work then it's understandable, but it's still sloppy. I think you're just misunderstanding my position somehow
>>
>>3966701
>lmao
>lmao
>fucking idiot lmao

You sound mad
>>
>>3963828
should I get a Z9 or sell all my Z lenses and switch to R5?
>>
>>3966711
> I think you're just misunderstanding my position somehow
I think you should just admit you are backpedalling and have changed your position.
>>
>>3963828
Yes, the 5DS R is better.
>>
Are people really buying 69 megapickle cameras so they can crop, or is that just rationalizing the price tag?
>>
>>3967182
It's only one of many of things the R5 does better. But you complain about them sour grapes.
>>
>>3963851
Some of us inherited money
>>
>>3963828
I have an R6 and it slays everything else except the R5, and maybe the R3.



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.