[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

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 102 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]


[Advertise on 4chan]


Let’s say I’ve got an iso 8 film in my camera but it’s night time . Can I just change the iso Setting? How much can you change the iso on ,say 100 iso . Are some films more flexible than others with their iso

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 6s
Camera Software15.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)49 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:08:05 20:39:26
Exposure Time1/24 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness0.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1536
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Digital Zoom Ratio1.7
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Fucking imbecile
>>
>>4100008
Slide film - you can try to push it a stop. Maybe two, and that's only ISO 32. And it'll look pretty bad.
Negative film - you could try to push it like 3 stops, maybe. ISO 64.

You won't be able to push this to a speed fast enough to hand hold, so you may as well put it on a tripod and not push the film at all.
>>
>>4100009
I’m going to take some night pictures at iso 8 . How does this make you feel ?
>>
>>4100008
No, you can’t just adjust the iso setting.

You can, however, underexpose or overexpose above what the meter says and then push or pull development later. The result is similar to digital. You get more grain and less detail in shadows. Print film actually benefits from overexposure somewhat, and I usually shoot at about 2/3 stop or one full stop above box speed.
>>
>>4100024
I dont know about that other guy but I get mad as fuck when people waste resources.

get raped
>>
>>4100026
>you can't just adjust the iso setting

>you wouldnt download a car


he CAN just adjust the iso setting. In fact if he's going to push/pull Its literally how you push or pull film correctly and still be able to meter the shot with your camera

the mitigating factor is is the stock of film being used and how much latitude that particular film has. As the other anon hinted at, something like Provia 100 is going to have a lot less latitude than Ilford delta 400 or cinestill 800.

The big issue is finding labs that can push/pull the film.

That said, OP should just get a tripod and do a long exposure and stop being retarded
>>
>>4100088
No? That’s not adjusting the iso setting, that’s pushing and pulling.
>>
>>4100017
>>4100026
>>4100088
>>4100102
you all seem to have missed that OP wants to mix box speed and "pushed" shots on the same roll.

>>4100008
Yes, you could set your meter to say 32 and push afterwards. But your iso 8 shots will be very dense and will have funky contrast and probably blown highlights.
Practically, you absolutely should not attempt to shoot your film at anything above 8. Film that slow is almost always also super high contrast and doesn't tolerate underexposure of any kind. Expect pushing to result in "soot and snow" pictures where there's either no exposure, or fully blown out exposure with almost nothing in between.
>>
Using box speed is the recommended way for predictable results.
>>
As a tourist with a6400, should i get sigma 18-50 2.8 or 56 1.4?
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (2.48 MB, 1365x2048)
2.48 MB
2.48 MB JPG
How do I into proper printing?

What're the basics I should know for it? Lots of info online for the gear and techniques needed to take the photos but not much for the equipment that you can actually put them to paper with.

Just want to create nice photo albums and be able to create stuff I wouldn't be ashamed of framing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareNegative Lab Pro v2.3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:11:15 21:41:10
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
I wanted to clean my brand new B+W filter because I have autism.
I wet a new microfiber cloth with distilled water, wiped the filter, and wiped it again with a clean dry microfiber cloth. Filter looks clean but if I shine my phone light through the filter I can see streaks and smears.
I went ahead and bought B+W lens cleaner spray and pec pads. Do I do the same thing? Spray pec pad, wipe filter, wipe again with dry pec pad?
>>
>>4100207
wipe your ass with the pec pad first, then clean the filter.
>>
>>4100208
Can you please give me a serious answer. I know dust on the front element or filter won't affect image quality but my autism prevents me from being OK with that.
I've tried Zeiss wipes and they always leave streaks or lint
I really don't know what to fucking do at this point
>>
>>4100209
wet wipe first, then dry wipe with a clean one
I use qtips and isopropyl, myself. If you let it dry by itself it'll develop streaks
good luck anon
>>
File: 1638010977433.png (1.68 MB, 1920x855)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB PNG
cant decide which i should get. any recommendation or tip or comment?
>>
>>4100198
unless you plan to spend your holiday taking portraits of people and distant landscapes only then the zoom, no question.
>>
>>4100247
Let's be real, that camera is going to be left in the hotel room and their iPhone will handle normal camera duties.
>>
>>4100198
i have the a6600 and both lenses
do you have any specific questions
>>
>>4100240
Having bought a mirrorless for 155 euro+75 euro, I would say neither they probably are broken and riddled with so many hidden issue that they might as well be recycled at this price.
Probably much worse experience than just using your phone.

I would expect that both of these will overheat on summer and constantly reset the position of the lens and focus.
>>
>>4100410
fuck man
i have this issue with all film cams i used before but im tired of wasting so much money so im looking at this cheaper price range
>>
>>4100411
Do your lens have a slight seating problem?
Try to see which way to screw in the lens, and hold the camera by the lens+corpus in a way that prevents movement of the lens.
Obviously the camera has a mechanism that seats the lens in place, but it seemed to reduce the annoyance for me.

Never have I had this issue with a camera we bought brand new.
>>
>>4100413
sorry
what i meant with "this issue" is that i buy a used analog camera and it only brings issues and is full of some kind of bullshit/ somehow broken or whatever
>>
>>4100204
What are you trying to do, print at home? Just get a photo printer but don’t expect good quality. You’re better off outsourcing your prints because paper and ink still costs $$$.

Just remember to set your dpi to 300 when exporting and obviously export the highest resolution possible. Experiment with different papers for the print look you want to achieve. I like to use Whitewall for printing because they carry premium fujifilm papers as well as do glicee and the price and customer service is good. At lot of printers out there dont say exactly what paper they use they’ll just “metallic” or “premium” or their own marketing name for a brand name paper.

Ive also made canvas prints from Printique that came out high quality.

You can also order prints with watermarks for a significant discount if you just want to save money and test papers.

Don’t invest in a home printer until you have lots of experience ordering prints and finding out what you like.
>>
>>4100247
True, i guess i just wanted to be hip and get a prime.
>>4100249
It's actually gonna be Samsung :^)
>>
>>4100416
>buy a used analog camera
>>4100416
>broken
i mean, the dots are there, just connect them
>>
File: 1643102122932.jpg (1.97 MB, 2000x1312)
1.97 MB
1.97 MB JPG
>>4100495
i bought my normal cam used and its great. new anolog cams are way too expensive

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2000
Image Height1312
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
If I use an iso 100 film and slap a k2 filter in front of my lens couldn't i decrease my cameras iso setting to 50 instead of stopping down? I don't want to change the depth of field of the photo.

Yes I photographed my photo because my scanner is broken ATM.
>>
>>4100635
My dumbass meant increase iso to 200
>>
>>4100635
>couldn't i decrease my cameras iso setting to 50 instead of stopping down
If your meter is inside the camera then you don't do either - most meters correctly compensate for a yellow filter.
If you set your meter to 50 and take a reading without the filter then whatever it says will be correct with the filter for 100 film. You can of course adjust shutter and aperture to anything that keeps the exposure the same.
>>
>>4100636
in that case no, setting the speed to 200 would underexpose by 1 stop, same as setting it to 200 without a filter.
setting it to 200 and taking a reading without the filter would underexpose by 2 stops which is pretty much fatal for shadow detail.
>>
>>4100638
I'm shooting on a Nikon FM, I doubt that the built in meter can correct a yellow filter, since it's so old there's no digital technology at all in the camera.

Your advice is to just not compensate the filter? I've been compensating the filter by stopping down one stop so far.
I just hoped there was a way I didn't have to compensate with the aperture/shutter speed settings
>>
>>4100639
>>4100639

My train of thought is this:
You're right I intend to half the cameras iso setting compared to my films iso to make the camera interpret the light intensity twice as high as it should be (I'm overexposing by one stop) which then should be corrected through the filter which only lets half of the intensity of the light pass into my camera
Where's my mistake in that reasoning?
>>
I’m getting rid of my iPhone 14 pro for a Samsung phone which has a worse camera , I love my iPhones camera as I primarily use it for concerts for videos and pictures, I don’t want to use the Samsungs camera for this, does anyone know a good camera I could get instead? Most concerts don’t allow cameras so it would need to be small or discrete as well
>>
File: im-666972.jpg (215 KB, 1260x879)
215 KB
215 KB JPG
This photo had to be taken with a flash, right?
>>
>>4100662
no, steel reflector
>>
>>4100008
How does native iso work on my panasonic s5? For photography does iso100 performance worse than 640 for example?
>>
Got a 100 dollar Amazon gift card burning a home in my pocket. What photo related shit would you recommend picking up off of there?
>>
>>4100922
Lens filter, like a good polarizer
>>
>>4100925
Was going to say this. Get NDs, Polarizers, or even UV filters to protect your glass. A spare camera battery, another SD card.
>>
>>4100922
a nice, hefty tripod
>>
File: 1668723169598.jpg (201 KB, 1371x1229)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
So how do I disattach two stuck to each other filters?
>>
>>4101211
I had an issue like that with extension tubes a few days ago
since they are empty I just slammed them flat on the table and after that I could begin to unscrew them
for your case I suggest laying it on a rubber mat that wont slip, laying onother one over it and then trying to turn it while applying downward pressure. The rubber will grip the rim above and below and with flat palm you should be able to unscrew them
>>
When you use the evf do you close your other eye?
>>
>>4101305
i don't use the EVF

i look through the OVF with both eyes open and the camera away from my face unless I really need to see the exposure settings and electronic level
>>
>>4100209
Watch this fat faggot https://youtu.be/dBTb1l0jLIw
>>
You just got to use the flash if you can.
>>
I need the "it's a Pentax" meme, the one with the crying blacks. Anyone?
>>
>>4100723
Anything that specifically makes you think that? It's either AP or Reuters photo, I forget which, would reporters lug around reflector screens? And do they have enough range to illuminate the people?

I like how the shadowed parts of the people are properly exposed despite shooting against bright light, if this is done with a reflector I'd be tempted to get one.
>>
>>4100008
What's the consensus on peepin' cameras?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1eIX-ovn0I
>>
>>4100488
The state of snoyfags
>>
>>4100662
My guess is theres a building with reflective glass to the left of the photo and its the afternoon
>>
>>4101397
That you can't beat the peep1000 for now
>>
Anyone have an anchor solution for using a 1in wide rifle sling (pic related) for a 35mm film camera?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1296
Image Height1620
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4100008
If you push or pull the film and you're not revealing it by yourself, make a note for the guy revealing to push/pull that specific frame or he'll fuck up all your roll.
>>
you should just learn to speak korean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g-0FBEw0tQ
>>
Where can I find a working lightroom crack?
>>
>>4101675
Various manufacturers make plates with a qd socket, but you’d have to run a one point sling.
>>
>>4101679
>specific frame
umm aren't you supposed to push/pull the whole roll?
>>
I know raising exposure in post can lead to increased noise, but is there any downside to lowering exposure in post?
>>
>>4102686
You can't bring back washed out highlights.
>>
are film lenses "full frame"? will I get the results I'm expecting from buying an adapter and using it to put an old lens on my modern full frame camera?
>>
>>4102875
The 35mm film frame is the full frame.
>>
>>4102875
Not all of them, just 35mm ones. The ones made for 110 film and other smaller formats project a smaller circle.
>>
>>4100240
none, both are shit. you can find some nikon F801 for 10 bucks more
>>
>>4100644
>I doubt that the built in meter can correct a yellow filter
it's a TTL filter so don't touch the iso setting, just slap your filter on and shoot the exposure your camera tell you
Simple as
>>
>>4102978
fugg already bought the minolate and shot almost 2 rolls
but thanks:p hope wont be too terribkle
>>
At what shutter speed should I be shooting wide landscapes, fast just doesn't look good and too slow makes too blurry, what is the right speed?
>>
photography is so fucking gay why do you exist
>>
>>4103167
<=1/15
>>
>>4102878
>>4102902
thanks anons. I bought a cheap adapter so even if it doesn't work out I only wasted like $15
>>
>>4101397
definitely usable but not at extreme distances.. I grabbed this of yt few years ago, pretty good demonstration of video capabilities..
bayfiles.com / Y030e5Jay3
>>
Why is 85mm supposed to be for portraits?
>>
File: 20221106_064907.jpg (2.43 MB, 4000x3000)
2.43 MB
2.43 MB JPG
I'm trying very cheap and generic hardware to get into astrophotography and I'm switching between two dedicated cameras and my Galaxy s21 camera. The phone takes way better pictures as the other is a shitty lumix that offers no control and the other is a cheap entry Fuji camera I won in a bid for $15.

So far, the phone camera isn't the that bad but all three pieces of equipment have their short comings but they all share not enough exposure time.

Galaxy s21 allows a 50iso with 20 second exposure.
Fuji allows a 8 second exposure (but still has a shit time capturing light)
Lumix offers no control beyond 4 second exposure manual or 30 second exposure with an auto mode.

Is there any sort of software hack I can do to force longer exposures or is it a literal hardware limitation?
>>
>>4101675
keyrings
>>
File: small.jpg (833 KB, 1404x1053)
833 KB
833 KB JPG
is there a /p/ approved guide for noobs? I'm trying to read the board but have no idea what all the terms mean.
also any tips for photographing birds?
>>
>>4103788
>also any tips for photographing birds?
study dentistry or buy a crop sensor camera. the croppest crop you can cop. micro four thirds? sure. nikon coolpix p1000? crop. cop it. dear fucking god i hate bird photography and i hate birds
>>
Why would I commit to increasing my ISO when I can just make it brighter in post if I need to? Both seem to have the exact same affect on the final photo.
>>
>>4103656
usually a focal that can still be very fast, focal distortion is not disfiguring, still small enough to minimise camera shake
>>
I have a lens which appears to have some internal damage to the glass that I can only see from a very specific angle when I shine light on it. As far as I can tell, it doesn't affect my images. How is this possible? Also, how would this impact the value of the lens when I sell it?
>>
>>4103805
so you can use faster shutter speeds or smaller apertures?
>>
File: push.png (1.67 MB, 1007x1006)
1.67 MB
1.67 MB PNG
>>4103656
for common portrait framing, it puts you at a camera to subject distance where perspective distortion is pretty flattering
gives you more subject isolation than a 50, and much more common / smaller / cheaper / versatile, than 105-135mm lenses which are also great for portraits
portrait work is done at all kinds of focal lengths, they just give a different look and may be better/worse for the type of portrait you are going for
>>4103805
best case, it's basically the same
most cases it's close enough to not care, but probably slightly worse, and always run the risk of clipping shadows
in many cases, it's much worse, picrel is a few models at iso 100 and pushed 5 stops in post
>>
I'm doing a small, paid photo gig in a few weeks' time. Nothing special, just a friend hosting an event for an organisation and they want some snaps. Is $50 (CAD) a reasonable ask for two hours of photographing? I want $50 for it but $40 is more tame and I could ask for that too without being too bothered.
>>
>>4103656
85mm is just a good focal length, that's all! :)
>>
>>4103984
it's EXTREME lowballing to the point that if it wasn't your friend, you'd probably be declined because it's suspiciously low. If you were doing it for the friend personally, sure, that's cool to cover the cost of transport and shit but doing it in any professional capacity it's way too low.
If it's a charity/non-profit/educational organization, go with $100 as a courtesy. If it's anything corporate, at least $200 depending how much editing is involved and how far do you have to travel.
>>
>>4102875
success!
>>
>>4104047
Damn, really? I was going off the fact that I would have been there anyway and bringing my camera is literally free. I guess I'm selling myself short, but I don't like feeling like I'm taking advantage
>>
anyone used the gx7 mark iii?
I need a lightweight camera to take hiking
>>
>>4104087
Googling around the minimum wage in Canada seems to be around ~$15 depending on province. So you're asking for $10 over minimum wage to cover
>transportation time and cost
>gear amortization
>time spent editing
>insurance/tax if applicable
Literally no skilled professional in almost any trade would ask anywhere near that low.
>>
I always hear about which developer gives fine grain but which developer gives rough grain I want that nasty big grain look

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 6s
Camera Software15.7.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:11:16 20:47:59
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness-0.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4101211
You could try putting them between your palms and using the glass as grip as you twist each hand.
>>
>>4104365
Probably rodinal I'd think. You could also try pushing your film maybe? What film are you shooting?
What the fuck is going on with the edges of your print? Do you not have an easel? It also looks a bit out of focus
>>
I use this flash with my film camera. But can I use it with my digital one? Or do I need to buy a new one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3696
Image Height3930
>>
>>4104410
no because they run at different voltages and i wouldnt be willing to try unless you wanna risk damaging both the camera and the flash
>>
>>4103831
because the angle you see the damage isnt the only angle light hits the sensor on that spot. The overlap of different angles of light hitting the sensor will cover up minor stuff but with enough pixel peeping and/or damage/fungus/whatever will soften up the image and cause defects.
>>
>>4104196
Well like I said, I was going to be there anyway so I didn't think to charge for transportation costs. Editing is basically irrelevant because presetting with my Foojee is good enough for my personal shots and will likely be just fine for some event candids; it's either me or someone with their smartphone, so I have an achievable standard set for me. I'm skilled, but this is my first-ever paid gig, so I don't know of my skillset demands a high price.
That said, you've given me good information and I agree with what you're saying I think I could comfortably charge $80 but I'll sit on it and try to convince myself to ask more. More money is better, but I'd feel guilty asking for too much
>>
>>4104410
Yes, you can use as a manual flash it in a cold shoe with a PC sync cable.
>>
about to buy a sony a6000 (with the 16-50mm lens it comes with) for 359+tip, how bad of an idea is this for my first camera?
>>
File: 71cLWKZbCWL.jpg (211 KB, 2500x2500)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
>>4104637
not a bad idea

pick up a TTL flash with a tilt/swivel head and one of these $5 cables. don't worry about buying lenses yet unless you want more zoom.
>>
>>4104638
thanks for the advice, is the built in flash really that bad? didn’t see any reviews mention it for some reason
I’ll definitely grab one though, any recommendations on some decently inexpensive ones?
>>
>>4104637
I quickly grew to dislike mine, mainly for its shutter sound (and it has no silent shooting option), but also the general ux.
You will want to use a RAW workflow as its jpeg engine is horrible, especially the denoising at higher iso values.
If you do not mind the extra size you will have more fun with a DSLR at this price range.
>>
>>4104647
Built in flash is weak, drains your battery fast, has a slow recycle time, and tends to create flat looking photos. It's barely any good as a fill flash for backlit conditions. Call it an emergency flash when you just want something documented and don't have a lot of kit with you.

A "real" flash has a wider power range, a zoom head for focusing the light, and can move the bulb to bounce light around the room letting you use it creatively to illuminate your subject in a 3-dimensional fashion. Off camera use enhances that even further. You can stick pretty much anything on the flash head to change the light it puts out if you own tape. You can also use wireless triggers and multiple flashes to sculpt the shadows and highlights however the hell you want, and most of them come with a modelling light that can act as continuous illumination for video or a rough preview of the flashed image. Generally a flash is a flash so even cheap chinese made flashes like godox/flashpoint are as good as any others as long as they support the TTL implementation your camera uses.
>>
>>4104649
unless the shutter sound gives me hearing damage and calls me a virgin to all nearby I think i’ll be OK
as for the ux, I’ve read it’s not that great but honestly I’m pretty used to navigating horribly designed menus so I don’t think I’ll have that much trouble with it, plus all the buttons are customizable which should sidestep having to navigate it a bunch
I don’t mind the extra size of a DSLR but since I’m totally new to the business I don’t really know what to even start with at this price point

>>4104655
Really appreciate the advice! I’ve heard the battery life is pretty poor (but I don’t mind taking extra with me) so it’s good to know the flash makes it even worse
>>
Super noob photographer here. Purchased some stupid chinkshit SD card reader and it corrupted all the images I took on this long weekend. Got a better reader and paid 40 bucks for some software to recover them, but wondering about the best way to prevent this from happening again. Can the write protect switch on my SD card prevent them from getting corrupted? Or does it not matter? Can you even upload photos with it turned on? If not what is the use case for this switch?
>>
>>4104670
Imagine not having an SD card reader built in to your computer
>>
>>4104676
i dont use a laptop and the tower im using doesnt have one
>>
Is 350$ a good price for a "Fotokor 1"?
>>
What should I be looking for when buying old lenses off of eBay so I don't get fucked?
>>
>>4104888
if the listing doesnt disclose the details of the lens thoroughly, 9/10 theres something wrong with it. "throughly" meaning: "It has no fungus, no haze, no nothing, aperture blades are fine and no oil and AF works". Stuff like that because then ebay will give you your money back without question.
Any listings with "As is" is also bullshit unless you dont mind. Any numpty can take a peak through a lens and see if theres any notable defects and if the aperture blades move imo
>>
Any recommendations for accessible/beginner friendly telescope lenses for phones? Was eyeing this one but I obviously don't know full well what to look for: https://a.co/d/5LuhLT0

My phone's a Pixel 6A.
>>
Getting into photography and my friend gave me his canon t7i with a 18-55mm lens. However, I have a samsung s22 ultra, so would the canon be able to outdo the ultra, even with the age and significant cost difference?
>>
>>4105190
what's your definition of "outdo"?
>>
>>4105190
it would roughly equal it if you looked at social media sized photos - for printing photos and viewing the real files on large screens, it would do a bit better. less optical zoom range with that lens maybe? mostly you would have more control and more convenient control over the camera and the possibility of using a more sophisticated flash setup and more specialized lenses
>>
getting into photography as a fun hobby. is there any "beginner" budget cameras out there? i'd say my budget is like 200 bucks. I imagine these suckers go for like 2 thousand bucks
>>
>>4105190
most cameras post 2012 or so dont age as bad as you might think. a 24MP APS-C sensor from 2017 will still kick asses without a question.
As for vs smartphone, it will "outdo" it in every way but if you just upload photos to insta, you can probably get away with it. The only big difference on social media would be way better low light performance, telephoto, and action shots. Most people nowadays use both camera + smartphone, camera for good pictures/when needed, smartphone for snapshitting.

>>4105195
look around for 2nd hand stuff like on facebook marketplace or so for interchangeable lens systems and go for the cheapest ones. Early Nikons are really nice and they are cheap where im from, like D90 etc. If you have the choice, pick the system that in the future you would want so you can save money on lenses.
>>
What's the difference between noise and grain?
>>
>>4105199
grain is a relic from the film era that used to be tied to noise (bigger grain more noise) but in digital photography its artificial. Noise is your standard ISO/light quality artifacts.
>>
File: images.jpg (11 KB, 387x130)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>4105199
noise is literally noise. correctly called read noise. it's unwanted electrical charges that aren't related to the signal the sensor should be picking up. you get more noise with a higher ISO because ISO on digital is just decibels of signal gain that correspond roughly to the effect of moving up to that sensitivity with film. more gain and you amplify the noise, making it more noticeable.

grain is literally grains. B&W film photographs are made out of millions of tiny grains of silver, developed from light-activated silver halide crystals. color films have chunks of dye instead that are converted from light-activated silver crystals paired with dyes. film with smaller grain can record more detail but takes more exposure to light to activate enough of the tiny crystals (grains) since each grain receives less light. more time in a developer bath will give less-exposed crystals more time to be converted into solid grains or silver or develop into fixable dye clouds.
>>
>>4105214
By why is grain considered acceptable while noise isn't? They're both a similar granular distortion of the scene that the camera is seeing.
>>
>>4105220
Grain looks natural because it kind of is. Noise looks like pixels fucking up because it is.
>>
>>4105220
One of them is looks aesthetic
>>
Pics that are a little underexposed (max -1) look good through the viewfinder because of contrast but dark and dull on my computer screen when i transfer the fotos. And also prints are a bit dark. How do i know whats the correct view of what im getting?
>>
>>4105281
>underexposes by a full stop
>why the pictures dark on screen and print
please die
>>
>>4105282
But why dont they look dark on the viewfinder that shows what the pic will look like
>>
>>4104670
Just plug the camera directly
>>
>>4105281
>>4105283
Check your viewfinder brightness settings if you're using EVF.
>>
>>4105281
Screens should not be trusted unless hardware calibrated and in a trustworthy surrounding. Use your histogram, especially if you have an electronic viewfinder and are able to always have it visible. Your computer knows your data better than your eye.
>>
>>4105220
I like the look of noise as well. Don't let the gearfags talk it down.
>>
>>4105220
During the film era photographers and film producers mostly tried to minimize grain as much as possible.
Embracing grain is more of a contemporary thing.

In 30 years we will probably have photographers making their digital photos noisy on purpose too.
>>
File: 1654886676898.png (519 KB, 860x861)
519 KB
519 KB PNG
>>4100008
Is FF really worth it? I mean, what does it bring other than 1 more stop or so, at the expense of pricier everything, bigger everything and weightier everything?
>>
>>4105410
>pricier
hah, not really
>bigger and weightier
not with true physical equivalence. you can use smaller crappier lenses on FF too. no one is stopping you. the crop sensor doesn't really increase the focal length. if you have the same mp or better density, cropping on a bigger sensor gets the same field of view.
>inb4 that retard who thinks cropping an image after the fact increases the amount of noise in the remaining image because he doesn't understand that read noise is only applied once
>>
>>4105415
>>inb4 that retard who thinks cropping an image after the fact increases the amount of noise in the remaining image because he doesn't understand that read noise is only applied once
The amount of noise doesn't change but SNR does. Because you're using less light.
>>
>>4105420
No. Listen. You can not change the SNR by cutting out part of the image. Noise and signal are roughly evenly distributed. SNR is only applied once. Light only hits the sensor once. You are, basically, cutting a checkerboard in half.

You can make the noise and signal bigger trying to enlarge a small crop as much as the large original, but you shouldn't enlarge smaller images as much anyways and the crop from the image that had a lower SNR and more dynamic range will still look a bit better.
>>
>>4105410
It depends of what you intend to do with your camera. If you don't know it most likely is not worth it for you.
>>
>>4105421
its true but irrelevant in the FF vs. others debate because no one is buying or making the 80mp full frame cameras needed to equal the pixel density of current crop sensors (yet). it is however relevant in APSC stomping all over MFT because it's a dying format that's only good for video.
>>
>>4105410
more detail/resolution from the lens
shallower depth of field

the low light performance is really not as big of a difference on full frame as people say, its just less noise from high iso but modern apsc cameras can go very high in iso with barely any noise nowadays anyway

buy full frame if you're a professional or you're rich or you've been a photographer for a long time and you're 100% sure you want it
buy apsc if you're anything else
>>
>>4105420
You're ignoring the fact that you're using less noise, too. You're removing parts of the image that contain both signal and noise at the same ratio as the remaining part of the image
>>
>>4105281
kek you need to adjust the EVF's brightness
>>
>>4105410
the general rule is:
if you have to ask, then it is not worth it for YOU.
>>
>>4105410
It's not that big of a deal to most people.

>Heaviest full frame system, middling in price, used prices, great lenses, all first party
Pentax K-1: $800, 2.2lb
Pentax DFA 24-70: $700, 1.7lb
Pentax DFA 70-200: $1000, 4.4lb
>$2500, 8.3lb
>"Caught up" M43 system with competitive weather sealing
Lolympus OM-D E-M1 III: $900, 1.3lb
olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro (24-80 f5.6): $400, 0.8lb
Panasonic H-HSA35100 F2.8 II ASPH 35-100mm (70-200 f5.6): $500, 1.4lb
>$1800, 3.5lb
You're $700 and 3.8lbs ahead of the most weather sealed DSLR that still has IBIS, but a stop behind. MFT looks great even if you aren't zoom crazy right?
>Budget conscious but still quality focused FF mirrorless
Sony A7R II - $525, 1.4lb
Tamron 28-75MM F2.8 DI III RXD: $500, 1.2lb
Sony G-Series 70-200mm F/2.8 GM OSS FE: $1200, 3.2lb
>$2200, 5.8lb
You're only 2.3lb and $400 ahead. And you could shave that down significantly by using a cheaper variable aperture tamron zoom instead of the stellar sony G series. Is saving $400 and 2.3lbs worth it to you? If you want a job with this stuff you might only be accepted as a second/assistant with full frame. If you take a lot of handheld photos in the dead of the night full frame would be nice too.
>>
>>4105569
i bet you could put together a D890 setup that blew all that out of the water. no IBIS THOUGH.
>>
>>4105570
IBIS is a crutch though
>>
>>4105587
A crutch for not turning your ISO up, buying faster glass, bringing a tripod, or putting your camera away. What a terrible crutch.

The real crutch is adjustable ISO and ISO invariant sensors. Back in the day if the light wasn't good for your film and you didn't have a tripod or wanted to take a picture of something that moved you bought a second camera or one of those nice ones with interchangeable backs. Yeeeeep. *sip* Bronica. Now that was a camera.
>>
>>4105592
>what is flash?
back in the day people also weren't so concerned with clinical sharpness either even fine art film photos were historically on some level a little blurry or out of focus
>>
>>4105593
>what is flash
A large device that bothers people and has a totally different look from ambient light so throw that in a "cope for not buying more gear" category
>>
>>4105598
>what is onboard flash
>what is dialing in flash and using gel pads to match ambient lighting
>what even is photography?
ah.. you're the spray and pray type i guess, nvm.. go by more gear, you clearly need IBIS
>>
>>4105601
>onboard flash - changes the way the photo looks
>gels - buy more gear, carry more gear!
>even cheap shit cameras have IBIS
IBIS is an anti-gear feature. It comes standard on extremely cheap cameras and reduces the amount of shit you need to buy and carry to take a photo - the tripod. You can buy an expensive D850 and get no IBIS, or a $200 olympus and get IBIS. It's anti-gear.

Flash isn't even relevant to it anyways. Flash is what was used before shot-to-shot ISO adjustments, but has more artistic use than just raising the shutter speed. it's an entirely different look.
>>
>>4105601
>gratuitous flash use
>not spray and pray
>long shutter speeds with IBIS instead of a tripod
>spray and pray
>>
>>4105614
>but has more artistic use than just raising the shutter speed
>most camera flash sync is 1/60 to 1/125
kek outing yourself as a nophoto here
>>
>>4105622
Mine syncs at any speed but the default is 1/200. Thank you, china. Obviously it's raising the shutter speed if it's dark out anyways, which is why built in flashes are mostly for getting an acceptable shutter speed in a dark room. Outing yourself as a nophoto here. Thinking IBIS replaces flash when it replaces tripod. The word "stabilization" is key there.

IBIS lets you shoot with less gear. Objectively. It's anti-gear. And a standard feature. A fucking phone has IBIS.
>>
>>4105623
>buying a new camera is anti-gear
ok
>>
>>4105627
>already having a proper camera from before IBIS was available
alright gramps. never stop buying rolls of film for your old nikon F. that'll show the camera industry.
>>
>>4105644
keep buying each new release of camera zoomer, that'll show the camera industry you're anti-gear sentiment
>>
>>4100008
Hello non-stupid people
I'm trying out film after many years, and doing the hipster disposable thing
Dropped my Funsaver yesterday and noticed there's now a bit of a gap in the casing just behind the flash (picrel)
Is that gonna have caused a light leak and fucked the rest of the roll up?
I know I could cover it with electrical tape, but these cameras shoot "backwards" so the remaining roll may be ruined. But it does mean that existing exposures should be safe right?
Wondering whether to cut my losses and get it developed now, despite only using a quarter of the roll
>>
>>4105742
If it's of any consolation I reloaded a disposable and the film wouldn't advance because I fucked up. Inside my uber ride I disassembled it to unjam it inside of my black yet translucent jacket... it came out fine in the end. Shoot the rest of the roll, knowing that it might not come out with anything of value. It's a gamble, but you have nothing to lose. Which losses would you cut?
>>
>>4105750
Aye that's a fair point. Probably being overly paranoid about how tolerant film is since I've not touched it in like 15 years
I guess if I knew for certain it was fucked I'd rather get a new one rather than continuing to take pictures on this and have them all wasted. I mean, half of my motivation for trying film is to try and make each shot "worth" more (hopelessly cliched, I know), so it would be more significant than losing random phone pics
>>
>>4105753
>I mean, half of my motivation for trying film is to try and make each shot "worth" more (hopelessly cliched, I know), so it would be more significant than losing random phone pics
that's a good mindset, even though you can apply it even to phone pics (I do it). Ironically with film I get more wasteful because of the ease of cocking the shutter even in my pocket, but I'm into reloading so YMMV.
>>
File: 1618000067898.jpg (23 KB, 335x366)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>Recent used cameras are at best sold at the same price, and most of the time higher, than if I buy directly for brand new on the grey market
Is there any point in buying used, rather than buying from the grey market? I mean, it's not like I'm having any warranty either when buying used, or if from actual shops, it'll be 6 months and pricier anyway.
>>
>>4105766
if Nikon, go used since they won't service grey market
most major used dealers have at least some kind of warranty for peace of mind, like Keh has 180 days
on an extreme hypothetical level, could argue that supporting grey market in the long run hurts smaller camera shops but that's not a concern for most people
some older cameras sometimes were locked in ways to the region (languages or like 50p video instead of 60p)
but 99% of the time, grey market is fine
>>
>>4105782
>buy camera at home in yurop
>travel to the US
>bring your camera
>can't avoid banding at night
Region locking cameras is as greedy as it can get.
>>
File: 1615793944617 BMW2000CS.png (2.23 MB, 1735x1182)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB PNG
>>4100008
Sony Alpha 7 II in 2000 + 22 and forward, Y / N?
Looking at this thing:
https://www.saturn.de/de/product/_sony-alpha-7-m2-kit-ilce-7m2k-2750308.html
>>
>>4106138
It's fine at that price. Keep in mind that lens is trash. If you can find a used R7II at the same price that's the better choice.
A7II is definitely dated but it's literally half the cost of A7III, so for the price of the better body you can get the worse one and some decent glass.
>>
>>4105782
>buy used nikon
>oops its from japan
>camera breaks, camera breaks forever
>should have paid $300 extra at the authorized dealer, oy vey!
Nikon hates you. Buy canon or sony. Preferably sony.
>>
>>4106210
I want to take both Picture sand Videos, so I settled on the 7 II and not the R7II or the S7II. Just wanted to know if it's still good for the coming say 5 years or so.
>If you can find a used R7II at the same price that's the better choice.
I've heard that the shutters give up easily on the 7 II and that newly bought would be better. I always buy used over new if I know that I'm going to get a good deal, tangent but I bought a used but fully upgraded Ender 3 Pro (3D Printer) for 90€.
Any insights to this?
>so for the price of the better body you can get the worse one
Wait the what now?
>>
>>4106341
For stills it's good enough but for video I'm not so sure. Cameras came a long way when it comes to video.
With buying used, the thing is Sony is a popular system, so you can often find low mileage bodies on second hand market. I bought my A7II with 6.5k shutter activations, but that was two years back.
>Wait the what now?
For the price of A7III body alone, you can buy A7II and a decent lens(or a very good one if you buy a prime). Depends on your budget if that's worth for you.
>>
>>4106342
I don't have the biggest budget, if money wasn't an issue I'd just get the newest whatever you have Alpha 7 IV and I'd ask for lenses here instead.
What would be a high shutter activation count for a mirror-less camera? I come from a film background and my weapon of choice was the Canon AE-1 up until now.
>For the price of A7III body alone, you can buy A7II and a decent lens
Ah, yes, I saw the Alpha 7 III prices.

Say I say "screw it" and open my mind to any mirror-less system-cam in that price range (up to 800€ish +/-100), what should go for if I want a solid all-rounder?
>>
When don't you want the light meter at 0? I've been told shooting in manual and aiming for 0 may as well be shooting in automatic. Is this true?

I don't get it, because I can still control everything, I'm just aiming for my photos not to be too dark or bright.
>>
>>4106213
Does sony honor international warranties? The A7IV in my country is $500 usd cheaper than US retail pricing and when I asked the store about warranty they said it's only honored in my country
>>
File: IMG_0662.jpg (160 KB, 1080x450)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
Anyone know of cameras that lets you set your own aspect ratios?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon PowerShot S120
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
ISO Speed Rating80
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance65.53 m
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length7.48 mm
Image Width1080
Image Height450
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
For example’s sake, let’s say you are looking at a lens to purchase. The lens is offered in 25mm lens for mft, apsc, and full frame. For the full frame this is truly 25mm, the apsc ~33mm, and 50mm for the mft when compared to full frame equivalency. My question is…

Does the lens truly gain zoom distance, or is it the restriction of the FOV by decreasing sensor size that gives the lens its mm value for APSC and MFT?

That is to say, if you had the lens on each of the above sensor sizes, and you were taking a picture of a dog, would the dog ‘look’ to be the same distance on the 25mm Full Frame as the 25mm (really 50mm) Micro Four Thirds lens, just with a decreased FOV? Or would the dog be ‘closer’ on the MFT lens than the Full Frame?
>>
File: file.png (552 KB, 646x540)
552 KB
552 KB PNG
Do people really use these exposition knobs? I never ever change exposition, and if somehow I need to, I'll just do it in RAW as I basically never go over +0.5 or -0.5
>>
Shooting portraits - how do I know when to use f1.4 vs f1.8
>>
>>4100008
Tell it to me straight /p/, Sony NEX 6 or Olympus E-P3. On a budget, not really looking to spend more than 400 CAD. Should I consider the GX7? Will take recommendations for any other compacts with MFT or APS-C sensors.
I'll be taking photos of moving subjects, so that is a main factor for me. Low light performance as well. Can't really find any affordable fujis so I think that won't be a possibility. Looking to get back into the game after selling my DSLR years ago and flipping my mju's.
>>
>>4107350
I bet that you don't even know what metering modes your camera has.
>>
>>4107350
I'm under the impression that these knobs (or setting) are just a software way of brightening an image, so I don't use them.
>>4107205
I think most cameras do. I'm pretty sure my camera (fuji xt100) does but I never mess with it.
>>4106537
It depends.
The 0 helps you determine if you want to expose for shadows or highlights/brights in an image (up to you). It's actually based off some neutral gray color.
Which also varies whether the meter is detecting a spot or an area, otherwise you could be exposing for the wrong thing.
If you're using flash in a studio it can help you calculate the exposure for when the lights flash.
It can also be used for calculating zones in film photography.
There's a lot of information explaining how to use them though.
>>
>>4107350
>>4107394
>I'm under the impression that these knobs (or setting) are just a software way of brightening an image, so I don't use them.
Its there so you dont blow out/underexpose your highlights and shadows especially in difficult lighting because a camera's metering system isnt always good. Mirrorless has made this so handy; if you notice your sky is too bright and its clipping, you can just use the EV dial and fix the image and see the histogram.
>>
>>4107406
doesn't that underexpose your shadows too?
>>
File: Nikon_D2Xs_Viewfinder.png (206 KB, 700x530)
206 KB
206 KB PNG
Hello friends,

I bought a Nikon D2Xs several years ago and its viewfinder looked like pic related, when I received it.
It was just a central circle (until it reached the top and bottom) with darkness in the corners.
You could see into the darkened portions by moving your eye to the opposite side of the eyecup, but even more of the near side would be occluded.
I set it aside and when I picked it back up a few days ago, (using the same lens) it's gone; the viewfinder is completely clear.

What happened?
I would have been using if not for this issue.
>>
>>4105569
Man, I'm planning to spend $400 on camera maximum. I thought to buy something like used 5d markII. But actually I'd like something smaller.
>>
File: FourThirds_is_Smaller.jpg (79 KB, 640x463)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>4105410
>bigger everything and weightier everything?
Don't buy big cameras/lenses, dumb dumb.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeLeica Camera AG
Camera ModelR8 - Digital Back DMR
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2009:03:14 15:07:35
Exposure Time1/45 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias-1/2 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash Function
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height463
White BalanceAuto
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image ID0000000000000000004C9E1400006197
>>
>>4105569
>but a stop behind
Two stops, retard.
>>
>>4107421
theres a balance, i just go off the histogram combined with what it looks like. In digital photography, its better to sacrifice shadows than blowing out highlights because its much easier to recover the shadows.
>>
File: 308F5082.jpg (3.03 MB, 2464x1648)
3.03 MB
3.03 MB JPG
>>4107497
>But actually I'd like something smaller.
Your only option for small and cheap is EOS M
Digital cameras are much newer electronic products than most and they've only been miniaturized/refined recently.
That means you're stuck with cheap bulky equipment or expensive compact equipment.
The only small vintage examples (Leica M8, Epson R-D1) have a heavy hipster tax excised on them.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0
Serial Number0000021256
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:07 05:32:33
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2464
Image Height1648
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationUnknown
ContrastUnknown
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceFluorescent
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed288
Camera Actuations5561
Color Matrix3
>>
>>4107497
Then you don't want full frame. Enjoy your olympus E-M5.
>>
>>4107258
nigga do you have brain problems
>>
>>4107258
They're called crop sensors. If you take a picture of a dog on your FF camera w/ 25mm lens, take off that same lens and slap it onto the body of a MFT, the dog will be "zoomed in" to a 50mm equiv, therefore you need to step away. Because the crop sensor cannot reach the light the full frame lens is projecting.
I can see your confusion but you're thinking too much into it. All lenses are designed around full frame focal lengths. If you want a 90mm portrait lens, on MFT you'll buy a 45mm lens. The only difference between full frame and crop glass is the size because you dont need to project as big of a image to a crop sensor.
>>
>>4107548
Just think crop lenses = full frame lenses with the corners chopped off
>>
I take about 1500 pictures per event. I used to do RAW + JPEG but recently switched to RAW only to save on SD card space.
Is there a quick way to export all 1500 pictures at 50% resolution so I can quickly review which ones I want to keep?
>>
>>4107562
what the fuck? import the raws and tag them in your editor. delete the ones you don't want.
>>
>>4107573
I don't like deleting things so when I say "which ones I want to keep" I mean something like "the ones I take out of storage"
when I first started out my process was:
>resize all JPEGs to 50% for faster viewing (full res JPEGs take 3-5 seconds to load on my laptop which mean really annoying reviews)
>pick out the shots I like
>move the full sized JPEGs of shots I like to special folder
shooting RAW + JPEG took up too much SD card space/write times so swapped to RAW only
I want to export all my RAWs to half resolution JPEGs so I can quickly review and re-export the ones I like at full resolution
>>
>>4107577
you are a fucking retard.
>>
>>4107578
how?
>>
>>4107577
Try something like XnView and/or XnConvert
>>
>>4107580
it would take too long to explain. you wouldn't understand anyway.
>>
I don't want to pay a subscription for lightroom, Is there a version I can pirate solely for my machine.
Don't wont to spend the money on it when I'm currently just fucking around with a point and shoot.
>>
>>4107394
>up to you
I don't even understand what it is that I'm deciding
What about the (most of the) times where I just want the picture to look like what my eyes saw?
>>
>>4107635
dunno, did you check the countless pirate sites with countless torrents of adobe products?
>>
This is probably a silly question, but...does ISO performance from same size sensors change drastically? I've been looking at some 6400 ISO photos from a Fuji X-E4 and they look fine. Meanwhile anything over 2000 ISO on my canon M50 mark II looks borderline unusable. It's possible the film simulation helped mask the noise. That or the Fuji sensor is much better at handling noise.
>>
>>4107852
Fuji uses X-Trans sensors which is different from standard sensors used by sony/nikon/canon etc. X-Trans 3 especially is amazing with ISO performance, to the point where i've been happy with 12800 ISO performance in colour on smaller images. X-Trans 4 on your XE-4 is also great but yeah, they will differ.
>>
>>4107859
Oh, I see. The X-E4 was not mine, but I'm considering selling my canon and the 4 lenses I own to migrate to the Fuji side. The better ISO performance, the physical dials, the film simulations, the position of the viewfinder (I hate bumping my nose on the screen while using the centered viewfinder of my M50), and even the design of the camera itself (although not as important as the other factors).
>>
>>4107863
play around with the settings on your canon before making the call imo because you should be able to achieve comparable results. Have you tried increasing noise reduction on your canon? I know I and a lot of other fuji users set their noise reduction to -3 and -4 (max) because of how aggressive it can be.
OFC thats not the same as using a different camera with better ISO performance but im strictly speaking as a non-gear fag. I'm drooling over the new OM-1 because of personal preference, so pick the fuji if you personally think its good, like you said film sims and ergonomics.
>>
>>4107864
Yeah, I can get decent results with a fast lens (at the cost of a shallowed DoF than I sometimes would haver preferred, to keep ISO bellow 1600). I should probably stick with my M50 for at least 5 or 6 years, I know I'll lose money trying to sell it and make the switch. I wish I had researched more before before going with Canon as my first dedicated camera. At the time it seemed like the ''safe'' option.



[Advertise on 4chan]

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.