>she uses a lens protector
literally like using a condom
why are we not already producing lenses made of sapphire crystal or some other scratch-resistant glass

>>4146658
>why are we not already producing lenses made of sapphire crystal or some other scratch-resistant glass
do you really want lenses to be more expensive than they already are?

>>4146692
We already pay premium, selling one with gorilla glass isn't really that bad of an idea. Also you think most phone's cost is on the glass?

I hate FedEx so much bros

Gear arrived. I love FedEx so much bros.

are there any medium format cameras that'll work with my SR mount lenses

>>4146628
What's a good lightweight tripod that's not a scam like the PD travel one?

>>4146888
For what kind of shooting, and where? How heavy is your camera?

Amazon wouldn't ship my lens, got nervous. Cancelled. Went to buy at Best Buy (in stock) and they didn't have it.

Ordered on Adorama. Supposedly will be here Tuesday.

>>4146855
Fedex: "Please stop molesting our couriers"

>>4146888
Classic brand like Slik?

>>4146888
What makes the PD one a scam? Just the price vs functionality?

So, if I go to FF from APS-C, all I gain is not even a stop of light since equivalent lenses gather the same amount of light, but just a "stop" of bokeh, if that makes sense? Seems a bit pricey and heavier for what it is. Feels like entering diminishing returns. Way past that, even.

>>4146987
You do gain light but ISO is lower and dynamic range and color bit depth are higher. It’s more versatile for editing and contrasty scenes but all you get with most SOOC jpegs is less noise.

>>4146987
>diminishing returns
>2-3 stops of dynamic range
>a stop improvement in noise for all but the “fuji noise is PLEASING so it doesn’t count!” schizo
no that’s pretty huge for serious photography

>>4146987
In a lot of situations, you can get essentially the same shot with either. A lot of the benefits of FF can be mirrored by getting a better lens, but that only goes to a certain point. For the same field of view, and same depth of field, you end up about the same in terms of noise / dr.
FF still gives you more dynamic range when you're able to shoot low ISO.
FF gives you at least the option to have that extra stop of shallow DoF.
In general, FF has a greater options for very high resolution imaging in terms of high resolution sensors and high quality lenses. It makes adapting 35mm lenses a bit nicer. Depending on the models, might also gain some qol benefits like a larger viewfinder, which is close to reason alone.
FF just gives you a little bit more flexibility. APS-C is still totally fine for most photography, even probably most professional situations too.

File: 865DAFBB-FD06-4747-97FD-2(...).jpg (147 KB, 822x774)

147 KB JPG

>>4146992
Yeah, not really. Full frame doesn’t really offer a huge advantage at all unless you only shoot at iso 100.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	822
Image Height	774

File: 4493987B-FD28-47B9-8EC8-1(...).jpg (279 KB, 1030x1013)

279 KB JPG

>>4146992
Noise is also negligible, unless again you only shoot at iso 100.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	1030
Image Height	1013

>>4147006
>photostophotons
Remember this guy has a weird idea of what dynamic range is. There's an arbitrary cutoff he made up where the signal to noise ratio trips his stupid computer program and says "dynamic range stops there!". The dxomark "landscape" (stops of visible DR) rating is way more relevant to actual photography and closer to how exposure latitude is estimated on film. There, the A7IV and A7RIV have 14.8 stops of dynamic range - visible, not some computer nerds personal definition of usable. I think fuji cameras are estimated to be around 13?

And even then, almost 2 stops through the normal outdoors ISO range is pretty fucking large. 1 stop is large. Remember 1 stop = twice as much light.

>>4147008
The differences are again, actually pretty huge. ISOs 100 to 400 are the places to be for a lot of shooting.

>>4147006
I don't know if I'm reading the chart correctly but it looks like the advantage is one stop over most of the range. To me that is huge though I'm not the guy you are replying to.

File: 1677386625095.png (78 KB, 1605x839)

78 KB PNG

And now, without your purposeful obfuscation.

The sony has over 60mp
The XH2s has 20? I forget. I don't care.

Full frame is significantly better. If you can afford it, and accept objectively inferior video recording.

>>4147006
Largely depends on the models too. X-H2 has more DR than X-H2s, and is on par with an og a7, a9, or z6. It's a lot better than older FF like a D4/D5, 5DIII, and the awful RP. More recent models like an a7rV would have up to a stop more though.

>>4147034
I’ll wait until someone other than “digital has 12 stops of DR because I don’t like that level of grain” tests it desu.

>>4146888
the one you have with you

>>4146987
It has a wider sensor, so more space to squeeze your histogram in
That's how you gain more DR

>Why not go for a 16:9 or even wider format as a standard then?
Because you would clip the peaks of your histogram if your sensor is too narrow

>>4146888
i like my sirui one, but the chink tripod has been chink cloned and i'd probably just get an ulanzi

File: 16AB5935-3182-4602-ADF4-5(...).jpg (180 KB, 1051x934)

180 KB JPG

>>4147021
Dxomark doesn’t test Fujifilm cameras because they can only test Bayer sensors with their method.

>>4147023
Ok here’s the xh2 with 40mp.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	1051
Image Height	934

>>4147023
>inferior video recording
How? Is, let's say, an full frame FX3 worse than an APSC FX30?

File: 9EC4907B-B524-45A6-A7CA-1(...).jpg (231 KB, 858x839)

231 KB JPG

>>4147023
Here’s the noise for the xh2 compared too. Negligible difference until iso 400 where Sony drops but quickly catches up past that.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	858
Image Height	839

>>4147140
7m4 is truly a trash sensor, they saw canon with cheap 30mp, and quickly threw their old cellphone sensor to compete with it.

File: 9AC9C187-1CFE-43A1-BE76-B(...).jpg (184 KB, 782x724)

184 KB JPG

>>4147142
xh2s vs r3 are similar to the Sony comparison though

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	782
Image Height	724

File: 8333CFC3-63C6-4846-8F8A-1(...).jpg (131 KB, 825x737)

131 KB JPG

>>4147142

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	825
Image Height	737

File: 254DF61A-8C16-4AD4-8200-A(...).jpg (199 KB, 781x753)

199 KB JPG

>>4147142
And if we compare the xh2 vs r5, it’s actually noisier at low iso…

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	781
Image Height	753

File: 8F0D01B0-70AC-46B9-9A6C-1(...).jpg (142 KB, 821x746)

142 KB JPG

>>4147142

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Width	821
Image Height	746

File: 1676066360113.jpg (47 KB, 426x341)

47 KB JPG

>>4147006
Damn. Almost 2 stops of light at low ISO.
And 1 stop of light at high ISO.
You picked a case where the Fujifilm got wrecked.

Theoretically speaking the Fooj was only supposed to be 1 stop behind at low ISO. Being almost 2 stops behind is terrible.

File: 69D5D338-21B9-4D7F-ABA8-3(...).jpg (445 KB, 1080x810)

445 KB JPG

>>4147152
Lol this you?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1080
Image Height	810
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4147156
Nope, I'm just pointing out 2 stops of light is terrible.

It's like vying an F1,4 lens and getting F2,8 performance.
But maybe fooj customers are used to that.

>>4147158
Ah gotcha. You’re stupid lol dynamic range isn’t exposure retard.

>>4147159
The FF setup isn't losing anything by converting those 2 stops, it can pick any advantage it wants.
you shouldn't have picked a fight where you have 2 stop disadvantage, that's just retarded.

>>4147160
Show me a photo where you cranked the shadows and highlights and it’s actually good lol

>>4147162
No, I will just laugh at you for being this retarded and doubling down on it.

>>4147164
Lol opinion disregarded. Nophoto detected

>>4147165
That's not an opinion, that's a proved statement, you have proved yourself retarded.

>>4147166
Nophoto

>>4147168
>Coping this hard

>>4146891
Travel stuff so mainly landscape would be my main goal with it, also some fun with light painting. And don't want it to break my back. Heaviest lens + camera combo is 1.3kg
>>4146938
Yeah, also anectodal experiences recommending against it, I trust those more than paid YT reviewers
>>4146911
>>4147136
I'll look into these, cheers

>>4147137
The sony is almost two stops better even according to this fucking retard

>>4147140
The sony is still better

>>4147162
Holy shit fuji copers are fucking retards

That 2 stops, depending on which direction its in (He won’t say. ONE MORE REASON PHOTOS TO PHOTONS DATA IS USELESS JUNK COMPARED TO A WEDGE TEST - BESIDES ARBITRARILY REDUCING DYNAMIC RANGE MEASUREMENTS BY NEARLY 3 STOPS) is:
The license to underexpose for the highlights, uniformly raise exposure in post, and get a good image
Not needing to underexpose so much for blown highlights

Yes crop is worse
That’s why the xh2 is $2000 new and a sony is $3500 new
Yes used full frame is cheaper than fuji’s shit
Yes that makes you stupid for spending more money on a worse camera

You can rectify this by using a cheap nikon aps-c instead of overpriced fuji shit that’s charging you a grand for professional video features you have never needed for anything because you don’t broadcast your shit on netflix and never will

You can print a poster sized landscape any day you want though

>>4147177
Even an ancient D810 outperforms every fuji dx sensor ever made

The real chads of /p/ shoot on cheap canon DSLRs. You don’t need full frame. You also don’t need to spend a four figure premium for animal butthole mirrorless AF.

>>4147183
Based

I shoot with my phone. Come at me.

File: sensors.jpg (1.53 MB, 2500x3750)

1.53 MB JPG

>>4147162
Not cranked, but here's a decent example of the difference in IQ in practice.
Same adjustments, same wb reference point. The X-Pro3 shot was actually also was under exposed by ~0.4 stops, which would work in it's favor with respect to highlights.
There's a difference, but I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it out to be in most scenes.

>>4147197
It's extremely obvious in the highlights. More dynamic range makes it look less like "more digital shit" and more like an actual photo.

Then again, the xpro3 is just a really shitty camera, and you probably would have gotten closer using an actual good one like the xt5. They actually want $2000 for that piece of shit and it's 3 years out of date.
>Gee why do people hate fuji and say their sony gear was cheaper?
Because of shit like that, obviously.

>>4147199
>the xpro3 is just a really shitty camera
To each their own, it's one of my favorites. Same dr as my D4 which got the job done back then, and better DR than what I was shooting before then.
> you probably would have gotten closer using an actual good one like the xt5
X-T5 wasn't out yet when taken, but yes it has improved dr. Still think it's a non-issue for most image taking.
Sounds more like Fuji camera's just aren't for you, which is fine. I can see the value in them though.

>>4147249
>non issue
I'm getting iphone 8 vibes from the highlights in the xpro3 shot, like it's part of some bloggers argument for shooting film.

>Fuji cameras just aren't for you
Some of them are, others are like the leica m11, lavish lifestyle/hobby purchases rather than utilitarian. Just without the stellar performancce and through and through flawless design to match.

>>4147251
tbf if you compared the gfx50r to a brand new fuji, you would squint to see the difference, and if to a full frame camera made in the past 5 years you would physically strain to see the difference

>>4147251
>I'm getting iphone 8 vibes from the highlights in the xpro3 shot
Cool. If I post pictures with better highlights would you change your mind? Or do you just have a confirmation bias for anything Fuji bad? If I posted similar highlights from other cameras, would you also think similarly?
>lavish lifestyle/hobby purchases rather than utilitarian
Nothing wrong with that, I love my M10 too. X-Pro's are far more utilitarian though.

>>4147253
>Anything fuji bad
No, the xpro3 in particular just has poor dynamic range because it is a nearly 4 year old crop sensor camera. There are lots of fuji cameras I like, just not an overpriced piece of larp gear with widely known reliability issues (fuji discontinued the series to avoid getting sued ffs).

Crop sensors have improved dramatically over the past half decade, going from boasting 11-12 stops of DR to over 13. Without enough DR, lit areas can look digital, or shadows can be noisy and poorly defined. Sometimes both. A stop or two is a significant gain just for normal photography where some stuff is lit by the sun and some stuff isn't, even if studio fags wouldn't necessarily notice it. These days, if you buy the latest and greatest, you probably won't complain except in the most extreme situations.

>>4147252
I wasn't part of this argument, but 2 stops of DR is actually huge if you convert the ISO advantage to shutter speed and get a much sharper image.

File: Screenshot 2023-02-26 215145.png (34 KB, 646x226)

34 KB PNG

at base ISO the difference in DR is only in highliths anyway

>>4147316
half of dynamic range goes into the brightest stop

>>4147313
you can compensate shutter speed with faster lens
it's much simpler to make faster lens for apsc then for ff or mf cameras. for mf you will rarely find anything below f2.8

>>4147316
>>4147317
that's a stupid point because another stop allows you to move everything one stop to the right in the histogram regardless of what it recovers

>>4147319
>move everything one stop to the right
lol no

>>4147318
You can’t gain the dynamic range with a fast lens. Only shutter speed and bokeh. You can only lose DR by raising the ISO.

>>4147313
Anon, the dynamic range of the gfx50r is less than a half stop away from an a7riii. You have no idea how good modern full frame cameras are. If you have something from the past 5 years you are set for life.

>>4147327
I don't give a fuck Anon. If you can't see the difference just keep trading ISO for shutter speed until you can.
SS advantage always give sharper image. And I will gladly take the 2 stop advantage

>>4147318
>you can compensate
I don't want to. DoF is DoF and is not to be tampered with just so you can be autism on 4chan.

>>4147331
Yeah but that’s not what it was about.

>>4147197
Your dog looks depressed. Stop with your gear shit and play with your dog.

>>4146987
You also gain the feeling of owning a "real" camera and the right to shit on everyone coping with a smaller sensor. These are the things that can't be measured in money.

Should I sell my old DX stuff now that I got a FF? I have a D3300 and got a D610 this summer. Had the kit lens and the kit tele, and the 35mm DX, and a fisheye.
Think of selling the 35mm and perhaps the kit tele. Then keeping the body and normal kit lens + fisheye. To use for travel and fisheye if I wanted to do any fishey stuff.
But honestly wondering if it's worth it. I mean it will only be like $200 then. Better to just keep it and use as a carefree camera. Perhaps just sell the 35mm as that's probably easiest.
Or should I just try to sell it all, lenses, body, and get new stuff for the D610?

>>4147354
She's sad that her owner is a fujifag

Scientifically, nikon owners have the happiest dogs

>>4147363
Do you need the money? Having a backup/dedicated telephoto camera is nice.

are there good modern lenses with 8 blades?
i'm looking for one to get the 8-point sunstar effect in astrophotography
currently looking at the smc takumar 85 f1.8 but is there anything better?

Lens and laptop get here Tuesday. I am very impatient.

>>4147367
>dedicated telephoto camera
The kit tele is 70-200. But yeah, I don't really need the money.

>>4147559
modern lenses are usually 7 or 9, but worse for sunstars the blades are almost always rounded now. That improves bokeh but makes it had to get good sunstars, and the ones you do get are a lot less sharply defined. You can, though, just put your own aperture on the front of the lens, cut a perfect octagon with sharp sunstar-producing corners out of some cardboard and paste it onto a cheap clear filter, put it on and shoot the lens with its internal aperture wide open. (you can also use this trick to get bokeh balls in any shape you want; hearts and such)

Recommendations for a decent polarizing filter or should I just get something from tiffen? This tamron 35-150 is fucking huge so I'm getting charged out the ass for 82mm filters.

>>4147690
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/09/my-not-nearly-complete-but-rather-entertaining-circular-polarizer-filter-article/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/my-last-circular-polarizer-post/

>>4147692
At first I was like "Where's Hoya?"
And then I read the 2nd article.
But I felt that with digital era do CPL really necessary now when we can just alter them later in post processing?

>>4147817
I think both circular polarizers and diffusion filters are still both filters worth buying as the process of emulating them in software is going to be time intensive and probably not nearly as good. I still buy both for my lenses.

>>4147690
What I do now is I just buy my filters for the largest filter thread I own (except UV filters) and use step down rings, it does kind of suck because often you can't use the lens hood, but it saves you a ton of money.

Lens will be here tomorrow.

>>4147835
Yea but cpl tend to cover only half of the filter, this became a problem when I want to use more than 50% of polarizer.

I have a Nikon d200 that I really like. But I've started to have anxiety knowing that one day the camera will die and because it's a CCD sensor there is not direct modern replacement for it. Should I buy one or two more to ensure I have access to one for effectively the rest of my life? Or is that dumb and I shouldn't worry about it?

>>4147817
You can darken skies sure. You can't edit out reflections.

>>4147835
NDs and GNDs too. Cameras are still limited in exposure. Not many let you shoot at ISO 1. And the alternative to what you can do with a GND is blending multiple exposures.

>>4147859
I think you're thinking of graduated filters? All of the CPL filters I've ever used affected the whole image

>>4147866
Wait, they're different? But when I saw videos CPL will always only cover half of the filter and you turn them around to fit the area you want to filter.

>>4147864
>should I buy one or two more
>is that dumb and I shouldn't worry about it
Yes.

Question: Is fake CPL exist? I found someone selling Hoya CPL for very cheap, I mean like, $5 cheap. Is those things legit?

>>4147817
>do CPL really necessary now
Have fun editing reflections out of images.

File: 135mm.jpg (113 KB, 965x1287)

113 KB JPG

copped an old minolta lens off ebay and just opened it up to check it out. what am I looking at?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4147008
Does this chart depict less noise at ISO 400 vs ISO 200?

>>4147926
maybe a circlip

>>4147197
>>4147251
>I'm getting iphone 8 vibes from the highlights in the xpro3 shot, like it's part of some bloggers argument for shooting film.
I dont see any difference between the pictures, aside from shallower depth of field on the MF body.

>>4147993
based blind man

>>4147197
This is shockingly close. You can see the better detail in the stone under the dog, there is more information in the highlights and the shadow regions of the moss are still visible. But at this resolution on this basket weaving forum, it's basically the same photo.

>>4147926
It looks like a snap ring, but I have no idea if it's supposed to be there.

>>4147998
>i have low standards and look at a photo for about 3 seconds before scrolling more
i am going to be honest with you
the xpro photo looks like actual shit
the gfx photo looks a little shitty, because exposure was clearly incorrect and he blew the highlights on the dogs legs
but the xpro photo looks like actual shit and i would gladly use a 70 year old film camera over shitty digital

i hate digital photography and any technological improvement that brings it closer to the dynamic range and detail of film, which was the standard "sensor" every single person on the planet was working with for a lifetime, is welcome, unless the entire imaging industry wants to dump this CMOS shit and start making more portra.

>>4148013
If it weren't for bean counting rubes, 220 would have been the standard professional film format by now.

>>4147251
>stellar performancce and through and through flawless design to match.
>Leica M11
What a retarded thing to say

>>4147683
Probably wastes too much light for Astro.

a7ii w/ zeiss 55/1.8 or eos rp w/ rf50/1.8?
i shoot landscapes and vehicles

>>4148077
Stay away from the a7ii. Nasty colors and the camera will randomly decide to fuck it’s shutter

>buy 60mm f/2.8 macro lens from Olympus
>takes incredible portraits with stunning detail and pleasing background blur
>can do all the macro photography in the world
>can even use it to scan my film

>>4148077
good sony cameras start at the a7riii and a7iv

granted those have been out as long as everyone elses mirrorless full frames so thank you to the retards who bought the older ones for helping build sony's lens ecosystem

>>4148114
one olympushekel has been deposited into your micro wallet

>>4148115
>he hates that Olympus has the most versatile lenses on the market

>>4148117
What you said is true of almost every macro lens from an amateurs standpoint. People use the sony 90mm macro, pentax 100mm macro, nikon 105mm macro, etc all the same way because they can't afford two lenses and do more anime figure pics than portraits

But in reality macro lenses take overly harsh and unflattering portraits and require a heavy diffusion filter - or just a dedicated portrait lens that isn't obnoxiously sharp.

>>4148122
all those full frame macro lenses are better for portraits anyways btw

moar bokeh

>>4148122
Then how come every single "portrait lens" review I see on the internet talks about how sharp the model is? If you want diffused shit just adapt a vintage lens, but nowadays basically everything is tack sharp so macros are just as suitable as normal lenses plus offering a fuck ton more features

File: test.jpg (118 KB, 1672x1254)

118 KB JPG

>>4148123
>moar bokeh
imagine neeing more bokeh than this, when I was shooting portraits with APS-C I had to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 to avoid throwing up.
also, learn 2 background lol

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom

>>4148125
because, get this: internet gearfags are absolutely fucking retarded. reviewers are absolutely fucking retarded. anyone shooting portraits for a living has long since chucked those HECKIN SHARP BRO snoy gay-master, niggon sucky, and cantnon loser lenses for european makes that prioritize the overall look of the image (things like flare, DOF falloff, color casts, the T stop, etc, for expected working conditions not shooting test charts wide open). why? because it's not a scientific imaging system and sharpness only matters for landscape wank and product photography.

>imagine needing more bokeh than this
yes.

>>4148132
>internet gearfags are absolutely fucking retarded
You are literally gearfagging right now.

>>4148133
I'm anti-gearfagging. You could buy a used zeiss or even meyer optik lens off ebay for peanuts and it would be better for portraits than that glorified microscope.

>>4148138
>anti-gearfagging
Keep telling yourself that, gearfag who is literally gearfagging.

>>4148145
The anti-gearfag gearfag club rejects your application for membership

>>4148149
>incapable of owning up to anything
>makes cringe comment as distraction
Wow, didn't see that coming a mile away. BTW, saying things like snoy, niggon, and cantnon just make you look like a retard. It also reinforces the fact that you are indeed a gearfag.

>>4148127
>APS-C I had to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 to avoid throwing up.

If I want out of focus backgrounds, I typically hover somewhere around f/3-4 (on apsc). I find that it's my favorite level of out of focus.

File: F3B489B4-D9B5-45E8-A9B4-C(...).jpg (2.67 MB, 4032x3024)

2.67 MB JPG

Naked ladies

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4148166
Easily my least favorite lens.

>>4148166
I just got my first 24-70 and it is by far my favorite focal length for zooms. Hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

>>4148166
Kino

I'm getting a used nikon d3400 soon, it comes with the 18-55mm kit lens. I already have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/3.5 AI-S lens, what should i consider adding next? I'm interested in trying out macro photography, any good budget options for that?

>>4148176
Are you just starting out with photography? If so then my recommendation is to buy nothing. When I first started out I bought 4 lenses in addition to the kit lens and 2 of them sat in my apartment collecting dust and I eventually sold them. If you're just getting started you don't know how you shoot, or what you enjoy photographing or what focal lengths you like/don't like. As you spend more time with it you'll begin to clearly notice where your pain points are with your lenses and can then start to make worthwhile buying decisions instead of wasting a bunch of money like I did.

>>4148180
*buying nothing more

You already have a good little set there to start and it should let you figure out what you like and don't.

Also if you want to do macro on a budget, buy some "extension tubes" for your camera, it's not true macro, but it will simulate it pretty well and get you close for start out purposes.

>>4148180
Im still pretty new, ive been shooting film for a few months so i understand the basic concepts, im mainly getting into digital so i can improve without wasting money on film. I'm not intending to get buy anything new anytime soon, i was more just wondering if theres anything i should definitely be considering for the future.
>>4148182
I'll look into that for sure

>>4148204
A cheap manual macro is nevcer a bad idea

>>4148223
Im more interested in manual anyway since I'll be able to swap between my film and digital cameras

>>4148204
>i was more just wondering if theres anything i should definitely be considering for the future.

It's a hard question to answer, and it goes back to figuring out how you shoot. I prefer using a 2 zoom setup and shooting that way, so my suggestion would be for you to buy a nice 70-200mm or 50-150mm lens to complement your 18-55, but if that's not how you shoot then don't take that advice.

Furthermore, it don't know anything about F-Mount lenses, so I can't even give you recommendations on which lenses are good value.

>im mainly getting into digital so i can improve without wasting money on film
This is why I never shot film, I feel like my stuff isn't so good that I'd be willing to spend money every time I push the shutter button.

File: 22E66AAD-641E-44B2-8FD8-D(...).jpg (81 KB, 1022x935)

81 KB JPG

>>4148167
>>4148171
>>4148175
I haven't used it yet but coming from cropped sensor to real 24mm is gonna be NICE. Also my Yongnuo flashes work with the new camera. NICE.

WAGMI bros.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1022
Image Height	935
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4148247
Could you post one single photo you tool with your cropped sensor camera that would have looked better on full frame?
thanks

>>4148247
I rarely shoot wide, so I actually love the 24mm on crop. But I hope you have fun with it, are you the anon who also bought the a7v? Post a sample pic, I want to see those megapixels bro.

Am i fucked if i have a body and lens thats out of production by now? Nikon d5100 and 18-55 mm lens, both over 10 years old by now but hardly used

>>4146628
Here’s a question for you American gearfags.

How do you think tax return season affect camera gear prices?

Consumers with more disposable income increase demand, inflating prices? Those same consumers upgrading increases the supply of used gear keeping the price steady or lowering it? Too small a market to have any effect from tax returns?

Trying to talk myself out of a D810 right now. New gear won’t make my snapshits better, right?

>>4148258
>How do you think tax return season affect camera gear prices?
It probably causes used prices to go up a bit. But I think it's probably less impactful than a popular youtuber making a video about a specific camera. So I think you should not worry too much about timing your buying perfectly, as there are always those effects happening. Check out ebay listings and filter by sold to see if you're getting a reasonable price.

>New gear won’t make my snapshits better, right?
No it won't. Try writing out a list of the specific things that the 810 provides over your current camera, then see if those things are worth the cost of an 810 + lenses.

>>4148258
New gear won't make the artistic content of your snapshits better, however, a D810 is far more flexible and opens up new ways of snapshitting since it's kind of the tipping point of dynamic range and high ISO performance where cameras got almost as good as film at film ISOs, that APSC from any brand has yet to catch up to. It's also stupid cheap for what it is. only a video fag would have a reason to dislike it, besides the size.

that technical performance might finally open up an avenue you weren't exploring that you might enjoy more if the images have better quality, and cropping and exposure pushing techniques (not just global, but painting in selective exposure pushes using masks) that aren't available to lower res, lower DR digital cameras and crop sensors (but were always available to say, MF film and an optical printing setup)

or it might not, and you just take street snapshits and cat pictures

>>4148258
>>4148267
*provides over your current camera that you would actually use.

Now that I think about it, it's actually better to write out a list of problems that you're actively having that the d810 would solve. I find the height of my impulse purchasing and buyers remorse is when I convince myself to buy stuff to solve problems I don't have.

>this FF camera gives me better dynamic range
I don't use all the dynamic range I have now
>It has incredible high ISO performance
I rarely shoot above 2000
>etc

>>4148276
>i dont use the DR i have now
because you learned to avoid pushing it since it's so small, or just accept the digital look
>i rarely shoot above ISO 2000
as a habit learned from losing good shots to awful quality
>etc

meanwhile good B&W stocks look great albeit grainy (but a good grainy) pushed to 3200 and actual fuji film has more dynamic range than most fujifilm cameras. photographic technology regressed.

>>4148275
>opens up new ways of snapshitting
I have taken snapshits you couldn't possibly imagine. Snapshits are just a word, the reality is MUCH MUCH worse.

>>4148278
>Misses the point I was making entirely

>>4148282
>misses the point i was making
not everything you do is what you actually wanted to do, your habits are influenced by what you have and changing them by altering your artificial limitations is always on the table

>i don't need pasm and front and back wheels because i just leave it on f/11 1/250 and auto ISO. all they do when i'm using the real controls is adjust by third stops and no real photographer ever needed those. show me third stops on winogrand's leica. nope, you can't.
>actually, now that I've tried this system out, i find i experiment with exposure a lot more and my workflow has gotten more dynamic

>>4148258
Why people are so impatience nowadays? It's not that hard to sit on that tax return for several months until used camera price drop down again and they can buy it far cheaper. I always saw a lot of posts asking "Hey guys I just received my tax return and I want to spend it NOW!"
Calm down, take some deep breath [spoiler]masturbates several times until you no longer getting too impulsive[/spoiler] and wait. It's not like we wait for years. Electronic price go down less than a year.

>>4148286
Because the value of money goes down as well

>>4148288
Blame your economists. Not our fault the inflation goes haywire.
Everyone know Covid will lead to economic downturn, but your govt keep printing money to inflate the dollar value in 2020 to 2021.
And before you're saying I'm being political and being anti-trump or anti-biden, no I'm not. I think both of them sucked big time.
You guys never complained about the value of dollar before 2020.

>>4148290
Name one country in disinflation where the value of money perpetually increases. There's always been an inflation rate, it just almost got too bad to stomach lately, and any time there is a positive inflation rate, holding cash is a bad idea as it can increase whenever corporations want to kickstart it with extreme greed.

>>4148286
>calls other people impatient
>doesn't even casually proofread his own post
>assumes prices are higher now without doing a single ounce of research
>doesn't even consider that not everyone gets their tax return at the same time

I've already spent my tax return and many people haven't even filed taxes yet. Your post is nonsensical and very representative of a person who is impatient.

>>4148248
I compensated for the FOV when shooting wide angle landscape docustyle shots but i dont have a good example handy

>>4148249
yep, bought the a7rv. i'll post one by this weekend. i need to get used to it and do some tests first.

>>4148045
You can get diffraction spikes by stringing some lines across the front of the lens, too, a lot of telescope images have four-pointed spikes because the front mirror is held in front of the main one by four spokes. But if you're using a photographic lens you might well want to be closing it down a stop or two anyway because photo lenses are seldom optimized for low coma. Especially an old Takumar like he has now is going to give you very smeared-out stars not too far off center. You compensate for the light loss with more exposure time (either in one image or in more subs that you then stack)

File: A4762C57-EAFA-4E43-9D4A-B(...).jpg (1.81 MB, 4160x6240)

1.81 MB JPG

Hey there. I use a Canon RP with an EF 85mm f1.8 via the ef to rf adapter. I notice that a used RF 85mm f2 is available and pretty affordable. If I go to Keh I can trade in my EF and get the RF version for a little more than $200.

Any reason why not to do this? I feel like IS, the macro feature, the lighter weight will be a big benefit. On the other hand it might not make a difference at all and it’s just spending money to spend money.

What would you do if you were me?

85mm is my favorite focal length by the way, at least at the moment. I have a 35mm , 24-105 and 50mm and I keep coming back to the 85.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS RP
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 8.2.1 (iOS)
Photographer	Jeff Patterson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:02:26 20:39:05
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: a tree.jpg (2.46 MB, 2667x4000)

2.46 MB JPG

>>4148321
it really depends on if you enjoy that particular lens. I used to have a Fujifilm XF 50mm f2 that I traded plus cash for a 56 f1.2. I missed the 50mm because I thought it was softer and I enjoyed the colors more. So make sure you actually like the way the lens looks before you swap it for another with better specs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 6.2 (Windows)
Photographer	lucas/claus
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:02:28 16:07:48
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	6.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSCF4464.jpg (3.46 MB, 6000x4000)

3.46 MB JPG

>>4148323
>softer

I meant to say more contrasty, not sure how I fucked that up.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-Pro2 Ver5.01
Photographer	lucas/claus
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2021:03:23 19:27:38
Exposure Time	1.5 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4148321
Just because they are the same focal length and aperture doesn't mean they will look exactly the same. It depends on how particular you are but if it were me, I would outright buy the lens and sell the EF on ebay. You tend to get about 133% to 150% of what KEH offers even after ebay's cut. But more importantly it allows you to actually use the RF lens and decide if you like it before committing. KEH has a 21 day return window and they only charge like $10 for the return label. That's what I'd do.

>>4148324
>minolta
RIP

>>4148324
John Carpenter shoots Minolta confirmed

What software do you use to view your images? I use irfanview, because it's fast and minimal, but still has a lot of features, and supports all the formats I need.

>>4148337
I wonder if any one of you use XCDSee. I remember that software exist since the 90s and it still exist now. I want to get the software but I wonder how well it compare to other image viewer softwares.
They even made RAW processing software as well.

>>4148337
I use Faststone Image Viewer. If I remember correctly, it was the first thing that came up when I googled "raw image viewer" and it's been completely fine so I never saw a reason to change.

File: 0D4970BA-C39D-44B3-B79C-3(...).jpg (1.63 MB, 4160x6240)

1.63 MB JPG

>>4148323
>>4148325

Very interesting insight thank you. I looked into this and I guess I didn’t consider the “character” of the older lens, that the newer lens probably produces sharper results that aren’t automatically “better.”

I’ll stick with what I have for now. I have the rf 35mm f1.8 for when I want to take macro pics

Thank you

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS RP
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 8.2.1 (iOS)
Photographer	Jeff Patterson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:02:26 20:39:26
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4148341
If you're happy with it, I wouldn't change anything. Plus it's actually more flexible. If you decide that you want to go back to DSLRs or even shoot a DSLR body along side your mirrorless you can use the same lenses. There are also a bunch of Canon CCD bodies that you could experiement with if you ever get bored and want a different aesthetic.

I like that photo a lot as well. I like how the shadows don't fall on the church but my brain expects them too.

>take photos on my 45mp camera
>delete half of them
>open all the raws
>crop a few by half or more
>save them all as 12mp except for maybe one a week i think should be saved for print
god imagine if i had only 12mp

i'd have to buy another fucking lens or even a zoom instead of just cropping everything. feels based to have a 50-100mm f1.4 in one prime.

File: Konica-Minolta-Logo.png (22 KB, 1600x1000)

22 KB PNG

What happened to these niggas

>>4148371
Bought by Sony
Their printers are still around i think, they are decent and pretty sturdy

>>4148337
just the old, basic windows photo viewer, can view raw files

>>4148337
I switched to Linux in 2015 and Irfanview is the only application I really miss. Nomacs is kinda shit.

should I get a spot meter if my intended use is for night time shooting around town?

File: pink-wojak-montage-screaming.png (1.97 MB, 1000x1000)

1.97 MB PNG

>be me
>want to buy new lens
>unsure if I'm going to like it
>idea.jpg
>I'll just buy from Amazon™
>they have free and no hassle return policies unlike OTHER brands
>purchase lens on credit card where all my bills get paid from so I get that sweet, sweet 2% cash back on all my bills
>receive lens
>don't like it
>heh, I planned for this
>open return
>mail it same day
>SPENDS TWO GODDAMN WEEKS IN TRANSIT
>my bills are coming due soon, don't have enough room left to pay bills on card
>Check tracking
>Package was delivered
>*whew*
>no refund
>call Amazon™
>I'm sorry sir, it may take us TWO TO FOUR WEEKS TO PROCESS YOUR RETURN
>bills start coming in
>credit card is over limit, we have processed the charge, but you have been charged you a fee
>credit card is over limit, we have processed the charge, but you have been charged you a fee
>credit card is over limit, we have processed the charge, but you have been charged you a fee

FUCK AMAZON. I'm never ordering any camera equipment from them again. I'll just buy from B&H and pay the fee for the shipping label, at least they don't casually seize $1100 of my goddamn money for TWO FUCKING MONTHS while they process a return.

>>4148401
the real lesson of the story here is don't buy things on credit.

>>4148404
more like don't be retarded and live beyond your means

>>4148401
Care to explain what your plan was for if you liked the lens and wanted to keep it?

Do you not have $1100 in your savings lol

>>4148401
I do this to convince people on /p/ i have nice gear

>>4148401
>they don't casually seize $1100 of my goddamn money for TWO FUCKING MONTHS
Everything has a price, friendo.

>>4148446
I have the money to pay it off. the problem is that if I pay it off and then they refund it, it doesn't go back into my bank account the money becomes stuck on my credit card as a positive balance, so I'm then forced to spend it and can't put it back into my savings.

File: Amazon_Pliers.png (40 KB, 928x317)

40 KB PNG

>>4148401
>at least they don't casually seize $1100 of my goddamn money for TWO FUCKING MONTHS
Still better than my situation.

>>4148462
>September
Bro how badly do you need those exact pliers?

>>4148465
I need them and I can get them elsewhere, but that was a really good price, if I ever receive them.
I asked a Pajeet where they were three months ago; he said the inventory was being restocked and they would be shipped "soon™".

>>4148401
>Attempt to jew the jew
>Get jewed
>Using credit
rofl

>Didn’t rent it from lens rentals or beg the camera jew to let you shoot with it in store for a minute
NGMI

>>4148473
I live in a nowhere suburb, the closest camera store is almost 2 hours away.

>>4148454
Lmao are you not going to make $1100 in purchases over the next like, couple weeks?

Are you a teenager?

>>4148404
You can either buy things with bags of cold, hard cash or with credit in AMERICA
Bank transfers, debit cards, bank accounts etc. won't work

>>4148462
>>4148401
Amazon is a shitshow these days, might as well order from Alibaba

>>4148479
Nice freedoms there

>>4148311
>I compensated for the FOV
so you didn't buy APS-C lenses?

Received my Slik tripod. Got it used for just $20 and it's pretty solid for that kind of price.

>>4148115
elaborate why the a7ii/rii/iii aren't good
it better be legitimate reasons

So I have been looking at a normal zoom for my fullframe Nikon (D610). I want to use this as an all around lens, something I can take with me on trips to the forest and such, or just walking around shooting stuff. So not bringing a bunch of other lenses.
Some used options currently available:
>AF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D
Nice zoom range, macro, decent size/weight. Ken likes it.
$150
>AF 35-70mm f1:2.8 (not D)
Heavier and bigger, less range and not as good macro. But "professional" and faster. Ken likes it too.
$200
>AF 24-120mm D f3.5-5.6
Most range, worse otherwise. Ken doesn't like it due to distortion.
$120

What would be the "best" pick here?
I'm dissuaded by the 120mm one unless someone here has some other input, the lesser quality doesn't seem worth it for just the small extra range over the 105mm.
For the other two, is it worse sacrificing much range and smaller size for some better image quality? Will the image quality be much better with the "pro" f2.8 compare to the 105mm zoom?
I think I'm leaning more towards the 105 due to its versatility, but the f2.8 popped up surprisingly so I began to question it, though it's range seems quite small in comparison. I have used a 35-70 without it feeling very limited though. Although extra range is nice.

>>4148401
>>purchase lens on credit card where all my bills get paid from so I get that sweet, sweet 2% cash back on all my bills
i hope that 20$ cashback was worth it

>>4148574
>AF 35-70mm f1:2.8 (not D)
Also the push pull zoom seems a bit sketchy. Does it work well?

>>4148574
If I compare Ken's used price "recommendations" the f2.8 is half the price, whereas the 105mm is just a tad vit cheaper.

>>4148574
they're all mediocre midrange zooms
just get the cheapest

>>4148575
The trick is to use a credit card not like a mongoloid. You don’t buy shit you can’t afford with cash and you pay it off every month so no interest. You effectively get good credit and free money for nothing. The problem are the smooth brains who don’t know how to handle their shit.

>>4148574
Update: I bought the 28-105mm. Most seems to like it and compare the image quality to much more expensive (modern) zooms.
Shout-out to the anon who recommended it in the first place some thread ago. (Or perhaps I should wait with that until I get and try it, lol)

File: ching chong camela stap.png (191 KB, 500x500)

191 KB PNG

Chinese peak design knockoffs:
Do they break or not?

>>4148850
They are manufacturers for peak design. so...
But feel free to stress test one, publish the results on youtube or some photo website.

File: Untitled.jpg (99 KB, 634x986)

99 KB JPG

How long can they keep it up?

File: 1609701896991.png (301 KB, 722x768)

301 KB PNG

What mm are our eyes?

>>4149072
a jap in japan vs a jap in murica
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2031486/

>>4149072
I hope they stop that shit. I went to the A7 line precisely because I don't want a fucking brick. Thank god they started the A7c line, but even there it's thicker than what I'd want. I hope the A7c-II won't get more THICC.

>>4149073
42mm

I'm planning to travel to South Korea later this year. Does anyone have experience shopping camera gear there? What are some good stores/online websites?
I looked at Danawa and just as en exemple, the A7IV is 2000€ new.
>>4149072
I like my A7III, they kept it small.

>>4149105
I don't know about South Korea, I think it should be the international version. But make sure it is, because I know the Sony cameras you buy in Japan only have the Moonrunes language. You can use https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE to add actual languages into the camera though, but it probably won't support a very recent camera like the A7rV (yet). A7IV should be fine I guess.
But then again, i don't think it's an issue with a camera you'd buy in SK.

>>4149111
Oh I didn't know about this, thanks for the info. I was mainly interested by lenses, so no moonrunes and maybe a cool Fuji.

>>4149072
Soon as big as a DSLR...

>>4149072
marketing to pro(sumers) with taste in massive lenses? not long. small bodies don't balance out with long lenses or give people enough leverage to swing them around for long days. that's why the R6 is almost DSLR sized, canon knows which lenses their paying customers (event/sports photographers) will use (giant f2.8 zooms) and how (long paid shoots). the people buying brand new cameras seem to dislike small cameras.

it doesn't matter to me though. if my A7RIII somehow dies from its history of being abused i'm not buying a newer model, just a cheap replacement A7RIII, or maybe a similarly priced fuji if i get sick of having too much detail in photos. its specs are enough and the menus and features are fine. sony hasn't released anything that's better enough and neither has anyone else.
>inb4 60mp
pixel peeping on the dpreview meme page i can barely see it and those dishonest shilling faggots tested the A7RV with the sharper f1.4 GM version of the lens instead of using the same lens for every sony camera. protip: don't use that site to compare anything but ISO noise. download the jpegs and check the exif, their lens selection is all over the place.

>>4149113
in the japanese market, sony sells two versions of every camera. a cheaper japan only model, and an international model at the normal price. it's to undercut their competition and isn't legal to do anywhere else.

>>4149116
mirrorless isn't and never was about making cameras smaller, it's about reducing manufacturing costs.

>>4149072
kek look like they got introduced to American culture and got addicted to BORGAR

>>4149124
>a cheaper japan only model
I thought Japan has policy to tax more for their own market?
A lot of stuff from Japan domestic market (JDM) tend to be quite expensive (and sometimes better)

>>4149215
Also unlike film, they no longer need protect film from accidental light exposure.
I think in a decade or less, shutter will be obsolete.

I could order a new flash or I could order 3 c-stands. *strokes beard*

>>4149300
Or shave your beard, this is not 2010 anymore mate.

>>4149303
*strokes your beard*

>>4149305
Joke's on you, I'm Asian!

>>4149215
If it was about small cameras they'd put the sensor further back instead of forward of the centerline

>>4149306
Based thick hair bro

>>4149315
Thank you mate. Great hair but sadly everytime I try to grow a beard it ended up look like a pube lel

File: SCR-20230303-gcd.png (48 KB, 1292x874)

48 KB PNG

Dunno if someone can help me on this, but how can I use my gimbal like a crane and always point toward the subject?
Do I have to use the joystick/wheel when I move or is there a magic axis lock that does this?

should i get a sony zv e10 for light video work or is there anything better and equally small for the same price?

File: bootleg-griii.jpg (58 KB, 850x308)

58 KB JPG

thoughts on this bootleg griii.
>Almost as thin as a griii
>Same thickness if you use the filter attachment on a griii
>dust is no problem, cause you can just detach the lens
>its a griii and griiix in one, cause you can switch lenses to another pancake prime
>aps-c
>150 to 250 bucks

>>4149629
no snap focus no good

File: 1677876107584.png (204 KB, 1232x262)

204 KB PNG

>>4149629
sony nex cameras are pretty shit and the hot shoe solution looks like crap. hot shoes are the one thing separating real and fake cameras.

just get an a6500. it runs android so you can hack the firmware a little, it supports a hot shoe, and is better built. a little thicker but the next won't comfortably fit in a size constrained pocket anyways (and neither will the GR), and all of them are firmly in winter coat pocket range.

the xf10 is better than all of them if you hate off camera flash like a pleb

>>4149630
Snap focus is the biggest gimmick
>bro your lens is stuck focused at 1m
It's a little more complicated to switch a focus by wire lens to MF, change the focusing distance, and then put it in AF and leave that AF-on button alone, yeah. But also why the fuck would you even want that feature it's fucking useless except for garbage candid snapshits

>>4149622
Wait to see what’s around the corner. If you want Sony, wait to see what pops up this spring. It may drop the price of older Sony crop sensor cameras. There’s other options for video if you want to stick with apsc or even m4/3 as well.

>>4149632
hot shoe for a compact camera is not needed, if you put stuff on it, its not compact anymore

a6500 is too thick (but pretty good otherwise)

xf10 is just another overpriced fuji premium item. Used priced are higher than what it was new 4 years ago.

>>4149633
Snap focus is heavily memed because of MUH STREET MUH DAIDO. But you could say that about gr cameras as a whole desu.

>>4149635
>hot shoe for a compact camera is not needed
Slip a pocket sized flash or transmitter on and off depending on where you are. Gimped equipment is a consoomer trap to sell you even more stuff. There's no reason you can't use a compact camera for more serious work especially since flash closes the high ISO performance gap by making high ISOs irrelevant.

>>4149645
i just dont need a flash for what i shoot and especially short focal lengths wont need targeted flash. And the griii also has none, so if i were to make a bootleg version of it that version also needs none.

>>4149645
and he nex5 has a flash, just with a proprietary adapter. its like 20 bucks, but too bulky.

>>4149634
im really lost in the world of digital cameras so i dont really know if theres any specific dates for new announcements etc. is there rumors for new sony aps c cameras coming? and also what other options are there for aps c video cameras?

>>4149629
I did this with a NEX-7 and a Samyang 35/2.8. mostly to save money but more because I despise the 28-equivalent FoV that all the GRs have.

I wouldn't say I was entirely successful. It's an old camera with an old sensor and it shows, despite said sensor's size. It's only pocketable in the loosest sense of the term. Even though that lens is a pancake by E-mount stanards, its still kind of bulky, and few are that small. (and the Sony 16mm is alleged to be optically awful) The controls and ergonomics are... Sony. Every time I use the thing I give thanks it isn't my main camera. It's acceptable for "I want to keep a camera in my backpack when I'm out but not specifically looking to take photos", I guess. But we really don't have a good "APS-C but it fits in your pocket" camera, at all.

>>4149696
yeah you may be right, but the size of a sensor still has a huge effect on the quality it can produce, just physically.
Now that I think about it there is not even a micro four thirds camera + prime much thinner. olympus epl seems good, but its a little bit thicker, gm1 would be the thinnest but compared to a nex5 its like half a centimeter thinner at most.
And for controls, does it even matter if its sony shit menues for a point and shoot fixed length thing.

>>4149633
>>4149643
I found snap focus to be pretty useful because what's wrong with snapshit? Sometimes you just want to take candid pics without wasting time to focus.

>>4149733
The problem is you taking candid snapshits to begin with. Why not produce something worth the bits you’re wasting?

File: gettyimages-1252410234-612x612.jpg (55 KB, 612x424)

55 KB JPG

>>4149735
>Implying only focused pics worth something
>When you can capture something that only happen in split second
>Also think snap focus is only 1 meter
I mean look at this pic (not my pic obviously) and tell me if you can take this kind of pic if you have to focus first.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4149744
i can take that pic with my phone that is at like f 16 equivalent. Doubletap volume down and hit it again to shoot it

>>4149749
Ah yes, let the small sensor and overprocessed JPEG shine!

File: mkII.jpg (19 KB, 554x554)

19 KB JPG

>>4149629

>>4149744
F/16 and leave it in the far zone. You know how cameras work right? Snap focus is a cope for not having a proper lens and works way worse.

just memed and bout that DIY camera kit from Lomo

anyone got cool/useful mods for the thing while i wait for it to come in? From what i see it's not impossible to adapt other lenses to it, but i kind of want to do something more than that with it

>>4149766
f16 is not always the sharpest on each lens. Some on f8, some on other f and you must find out yourself.

>>4149773
>f16 is not always the sharpest on each lens
So it may be, but the pic you posted is not sharp at all.

>>4149793
Do you even read my comment at all? It's not my picture, I took it from gettysimage as example of candid photography. READ MOTHERFUCKER, CAN YOU?

>>4149832
That I know, but the pic is shit at showing your point. You are saying that focus doesn't matter if you get the pic you wouldn't otherwise have gotten. Then you post a pic that any autofocus camera from the last decade could have taken. Another guy says that the photographer could just have shot it at f16 and probably had it in focus, then you say it is not the sharpest, when have posted a pic that is not sharp at all, because it's not focused correctly. So what the hell would you need better sharpness for if you aren't in focus anyway?

>>4149832
>>4149844
>that any autofocus camera from the last decade could have taken.
With correct, at least decent focus.

>>4149844
Goddamit do I have to stand up, dig my memory card, transfer it to my laptop and find one of my snap pic to show you how well snap focus work? I'm too fucking lazy for that.

File: chaika.jpg (454 KB, 1920x1280)

454 KB JPG

>>4149762
I don't hate what 7artisans is trying to do there.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS M50
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:03:04 11:51:19
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	22.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1280
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4149854
>dig my memory card, transfer it to my laptop and find one of my snap pic
I'm sorry for being a gearfag, but aren't you doing this to yourself?

>>4149773
You’re talking about slight differences on MTF charts that are IMPERCEPTIBLE on APS-C and barely, barely visible on 60mp full frame.

Snap focus on the GR is notorious for inconsistent results as typical ricoh users don’t know what it actually does and treat it like a video game challenge

It’s just zone focusing obfuscated for retards who don’t know any better aka a scam. Winogrand got better shit just by having a DOF scale on his lens (an unfortunately uncommon feature these days).

>>4149940
>Snap focus on the GR is notorious for inconsistent results
Does it actually miss the intended distance, or is it inconsistent because it's zone focus? Because if latter, that's the intention, camera takes a projection focused at some specific distance, no matter if there is anything in the zone or not.

>>4149762
that lens looks really cool, a shame its g 6.3, but with a nex-5 it would end flush with the grip. I am very tempted to try that combo.

Generally I think it would be really smart to move components towards a side grip, so that the smallest primes would end where the grip ends, amking the overall package slimmer. Imagine a micro four thirds camera that is 4 cm thick (with a lens attached) only with a grip on the side.

>>4149949
Miniaturization is actually there but the costs are beyond what the camera industry and its customers can stomach. The sensor could be all the way to the back of the camera body, lenses would be an inch shorter (or more), and your camera would cost a good thousand more because camera assembly isn’t fully automated yet and the cable routing would be properly difficult.

>>4149950
don’t forget, now you have heat dissipation issues that need to be reconciled with weather sealing and ergonomics. there’s a reason phones are thin. the body is a heatsink.

>>4149946
It’s zone focusing being used without a proper DOF scale

I’ve seen ricucks sharing cheat sheets that are just zone focusing with extra steps

>>4149952
you cant tell me they cant shave off 1 or even 2 cm. gm1 was 3 cm thick, i think 2cm is feasable, if you have a grip sticking out of course.
Also remember the nx mini, that thing flopped, but they also managed to mass produce something even slimmer with a 1 inch sensor.

>>4149957
also, fuck those tilting screens, if they make it a fixed one, they could save even more space.

>>4149930
Putting fabric on lens?

>>4149931
I'm going to 4chan to sit, relax and banter about stuff [spoiler]and occasional fap[/spoiler] and not trying to make detailed scientific dissertation.

>>4149952
>don’t forget, now you have heat dissipation issues
Wouldn't they improve if you put the sensor against the metal back of the camera?

>>4149958
Fuck the screens, you can use the screen in the viewfinder instead. Put a simple oled with some stats if needed.

>>4149958
Tilting screens are good. It’s nice to shoot waist or floor level without laying in dog shit or stopping way down.

>>4149967
That hair tie is for damping, that lens no longer has its mfd stop, it's just screwed into its base, and it was already very loose when I got it.

>>4149981
for a compact form factor viewfinders are too bulky or stick out too far. And what else to put at the back if not a screen?
>>4149982
still makes it at least half a centimeter thicker.

Any better backpack recommendations than the Brevite Jumper? I'm going on a vacation with my Fuji and maybe just two other lenses, so I don't need or want something big and turtleshell-sized, but I'd still like some space for other general items

>>4149970
My point is you have made your process very tedious, I suppose you at least don't have to dip celluloid into a solution, your life could be worse yet.

>>4149995
Half a centimeter is very much worth it. Fuck, I'll take a quarter inch. Do you know why? Because eye viewfinders are slave drivers. They're masters. They limit your perspective based on how much you care about clean clothes and mobility.

Give me an extra half inch for a screen that can move around. I don't care. I despise any camera limited to the eyecup and would rather squint at a WLVF at arms reach.

>>4149995
>viewfinders are bulky and stick out
EVFs aren't bulky and don't stick out anon. the same could be said of rangefinders.

it's better to compromise on sensor size and IBIS than quality of life stuff for composing shots. nobody really even needs IBIS, it's for video and long telephoto lenses.

File: a67e42961c6582aba8cd04895(...).jpg (100 KB, 668x760)

100 KB JPG

>>4149958
>Hating on tilting screen
>Even when it help you to not take pictures like an Asian
As an Asian, even this kind of screen actually help me stop doing stupid poses. And that's something.

File: md 300mm.jpg (251 KB, 1333x1161)

251 KB JPG

is this lens hazy or clean?

>>4149930
nice size for a 28/2.8
>>4149949
yeah, the 6.3 might be an issue during low light use, just denoise in post. also tempted to get one for the size alone even as a fun lens.
ver. 1 has flushed corner but no distance control ring.
https://youtu.be/keI0MQuqePM

>>4150199
>who would want that lens
tfw

>>4150040
i beg to differ, ibis saved my ass doing 1/15 exposures handheld at night

>>4150150
yes

>>4150025
There's tons of camera backpacks
Look for one with a big enough daypack
What lenses are you planning to bring along?

File: url(61).jpg (882 KB, 2000x1335)

882 KB JPG

>>4150033
>They limit your perspective based on how much you care about clean clothes and mobility.
/fa/ggot not willing to sacrifice anything for the shot.

>>4150074
>help me stop doing stupid poses
The 2nd and 3rd Asians are the chad poses here. 1st Asian is good squat form.

File: IMG_20230305_175439.jpg (173 KB, 1080x604)

173 KB JPG

>>4150199
Based boomer creep shooting the zoom girls for his review.

>>4150343
>wow, i'm just like a national geographic photographer in the middle of an african lake
>Says the autist as he ruins his clothes laying in a puddle of 20% motor oil, 20% dog shit, 10% dissolved cat shit, 40% hobo piss, 10% water to take a picture of a cat on the sidewalk
>at least my camera is 2cm thinner because my screen doesn't flip up

File: superior japanese technology.jpg (69 KB, 775x517)

69 KB JPG

>>4150349
That's the leica m11 experience, alright.

>getting a (used) EOS 1000D for my nephew
How would you feel if this was your first foray in /p/hotography?

>>4150361
i would be confused and frustrated because all of a sudden i can't preview exposure, there's this mirror/shutter shock issue that my phone doesn't have, and manual focus with the OVF seems a little inaccurate. then i'd try taking photos indoors without a flash, and the photos would look way worse than my phone due to blur. so i'd figure out turning up the ISO to raise the shutter speed, and the photos would still look way worse than my phone, because my phone basically has topaz denoise AI and multi-exposure modes built in, and the DSLR can't produce a usable image over ISO 800.

if i were you i'd get him some cheap old micro four thirds instead of the 1970s film SLR experience minus the film.

>>4150367
I don't think the 1000d even goes above iso 1600

Is there any new sony camera that will do 4k 120p in the making, rumors?

I'm very tempted to get the a7siii, but if there's something new soon-ish, I'd love to know.

>>4150344
Do that in gym (or garage), not in public.

>>4150346
lol, talking about "creep shot", what the best lens and camera combo that make good crisp pics from far far away without spending too much money?

>>4150483
there are three contenders in cheap tele game:
any kit telezoom
vintage girl watching or any telephoto lenses
catadioptric lens

>>4150489
>catadioptric lens
This is the first time I heard about this lens, and the price is surprisingly affordable. Then why not many people talk about this lens?

>>4150559
They are soft, especially in the center, always slow aperture, and it cannot be stopped down, produce donut bokeh, I know about only one af mirror lens ever made. More of a telescope design than a telephoto lens.

File: perv.jpg (206 KB, 922x692)

206 KB JPG

>>4150559
>[heavy breathing intensifies]

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:03:05 20:30:58
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	922
Image Height	692