>the small battery has really helped me to not overshoot and really think about the shotWhat are some more photographer copes?
>i dont need AF because i plan my shots out>i dont need battery life because i dont spray and pray>i don’t need digital because i get it right in camera every single time you dont need moreAnd then his portfolio is a year of repeats, different takes of the same dull subject matter…PetsPedestriansPolesPlantsTechnological and financial misfortune never made anyone better. They simply never stopped talented people from being good.Don’t join a cargo cult. Gear has zero correlation with talent.
>Overshoot
Photography is a cope.
>>4156326>film is a better format because it made you to slow down and think about your subject Filmfags are both coping and gatekeeping at how their "hobby" being democratized
I always "overshoot" if I find a subject I really like. The best photo almost always ends up being one of the ones I didnt expect
>this piece of gear will make my pictures better
>>4157191it does!it will make your pictures better!it won't make your art better but you're not an artist are you
>>4157192To me the quality of a picture is not dependent on its technical perfection, my work doesn't make any sense and doesn't make any money. I think I would qualify as an artist.
>>4157194Is it pictures or works?Is it art or photography?There's a difference. Mind you, artists normally make some money. Fun is what they have when they can't have success.
>>4156936I will or will not, but Il'l laboriously work out the perspective in certain places that got my interest, and that has given me great shots. Still, to some extent I envy the high level that a friend achieves with snapping away -> spontaneous and natural situations, sometimes great situations he managed to anticipate and capture.Some shots can't be composed with time and some shots don't even require good composition.
>>4156936Most good photographers, even ansel adams, were not stingy with film and had a lot of low grade throaway stuff and just random touristy snapshits that were never made for arts sake.Some people try way too hard like it'll make them more talented.
>>4156332>i dont need AF because i plan my shots outthats the one thing wrong with your post. this is YOUR cope.>AF99% of actual photographers dont use AF whatsoever (not talking about blue collar and/or youtube tier wedding/sports/event ''photographers'' aka. glorified snapshot takers with real cameras.) hell, blue collar glorified snapshitters aside, even most wildlife photographers dont use AF unless they really have to[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
I can't take a big camera in public. Noooo everyone will notice. I need to buy a fujicoh. Until then, I can't shoot street.Everyone still notices your goofy creepy ass.
>>4157297Your models are almost as hurt as your edits lol.
>>4157297Really? I rather know only hobbyists and blue collar photographers and all of em use auto focus except for certain situations e.g. macro. Some of them, the elderly, started focusing manually. I mean, your shot has a very wide dof, was shot in bright light. Still, I would've used AF for it. What's your background?
>>4157297Cope larp
>>4157312I don’t think anyone is larping with shots this bad.
>>4157297If you never ever leave your haughty bubble and have fun with other stuff that’s actually less respectable than being an amateur. It’s being a rich amateur who thinks you ought not drive a car unless it’s at the races, else ride a bicycle. What a tryhard.
>I don't need the latest camera to take good pictures.>My gear doesn't allow me to take good pictures.
>>4156326>if i'm technically good at photography I"ll become successful
>>4156326>monitor calibration will make my photos look better
god everyone in this thread is retardedjust go shoot and have fun, fuck what the people on this board think, especially cinefag
>>4157403>I don't care what people think or my photos look like, I"m just having havelol, that's the biggest cope of them all
>>4157406you're just having have, cheif?
>>4157406>>4157414Wich i had a have
>>4157414>>4157419>can't dispute intelligent point so have to point out typo like it matters in contextlol you faggots are pathetic but you know what i mean, stop coping
>>4157421I have fun, you have have. We are not the same.
>>4157421uh oh someone angy
>>4157421Your grammer is abyssal*you're faggot's pathetic but you know what i mean - - - stop coping...!
>>4157490>*you're faggotyes, you are a faggot, but in this case it is you faggots are "pathetic" being the dominant adjective
>>4157493>no have allowed
Evf is better than ovf, the lag isn’t even noticeable anymoreMy composition skills are perfect but I still need 42mp “just in case I want to use a crop from within my original picture”My evf allows me perfect exposure every time and the reason every single photo I take is wrongly exposed is I’m just protecting the highlightsDigital looks just as good as film and the only reason people put up with the inconvenience and cost of film is because they are idiots. The one that you have with you, proceeds to post a tiny blob that is a bird half hidden by a leaf shot at 50mm with the entire tree in the shot it’s so far away and you can barely see the bird.
Shooting colour film and then scanning it with a digital camera and saying digital can’t reproduce film colors. Actual hyper-cope.
>>4157502>Evf is better than ovf, the lag isn’t even noticeable anymoreYes, EVF is much better than OVF. An OVF cannot see in the dark.> My composition skills are perfect but I still need 42mp “just in case I want to use a crop from within my original picture”Sure, why not? You dont need 42mp, but its not worse than having 20mp. So why not get 42 if you can afford it?> My evf allows me perfect exposure every time and the reason every single photo I take is wrongly exposed is I’m just protecting the highlightsYes, it is generally better to protect the highlights than blowing them out. Easier to raise shadows than recover lost highlight details.> Digital looks just as good as film and the only reason people put up with the inconvenience and cost of film is because they are idiots. Both look good. Digital is sharper and has higher resolution. Film has the charm.
>>4157502these are all true though, so I'm sensing some cope in trying to claim they're copes
>>4157398the only thing in this thread that makes a real difference
>>4157502Yes, these are all true. >EVFOVFs are highly flawed especially in low light, it's a poor match for today's sensors, and are no longer precise enough for manual focus while EVFs are.>CroppingThis is so legit it's built in to most cameras. They've been able to shoot in APS-C crop mode for over 10 years now. You can get some of the reach of a zoom with a smaller prime.>My evf allows me perfect exposure every time and the reason every single photo I take is wrongly exposed is I’m just protecting the highlightsYes, that is how you shoot for raw rather than ready to go jpegs.>Digital looks just as good as film and the only reason people put up with the inconvenience and cost of film is because they are idiots.Absolutely true all the way up to 6x4.5 at which point film will pull ahead of most digital, if your lens is up to it.>The one that you have with you, proceeds to post a tiny blob that is a bird half hidden by a leaf shot at 50mm with the entire tree in the shot it’s so far away and you can barely see the bird.Ironically exactly why you'd want megapixels and sharp lenses for cropping. The one you have with you on steroids.
>>4157563the only good OVF is a rangefinderTTL view is a shitty crutch>oh no i dared to use an f3.5 lens NOW I CANT SEE>better buy nothing but f1.2 primes>rangefinder chads: give that lens to me :^) (<-handsome, shapely nose un-smashed by camera backs)Some SLR lenses don't even have precise DOF scales or infinity stops because "i can just look through the lens to see what i get!" and then they can't see what they get because it's pitch black if they stop down so they fuck around in liveviewEven EVFs have problems with getting noisy and losing detail with stop-down preview
>>4157566RF chads: f4 prime lens? yes pleaseTTL virgins: make it 40x bigger so i can see through it ;_; (<-no nose left from being smashed against a camera)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2016:01:18 13:27:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height1000
>>4157566>>4157567>>4157566>>4157567You sound like a fucking kike who is also right eye dominant and has shit night vision. I shoot reflex only and my fastest lens is f/3.5-5.6. Ultrafast lenses are championed by the mirrorless crowd with feicas.
>>4157191It did. Once I got good AF and eye AF, I spent less time faffing around with manual focus, and not having slightly out of focus shots for the shots I really liked vs the ones in focus properly. Plus frees up so much more time and mental energy to invest in creating better shots. It was very freeing. And opened up actually being able to shoot wild life (which needed another piece of gear - a lens suitable for it).
>>4157571>Right eye dominantAKA most straight people. Left side anything is a sign of homosexuality.>night visionI have good night vision, but I'm not a cat or a vampire, and neither are you. In reality you just shoot in good light and rely on autofocus, another SLR crutch because TTL manual focusing is a shitshow.>Ultrafast lenses are for mirrorlessFast lens faggotry was started by and for SLR homos.
>>4157571Left eye dominants have it even worse desu.The controls are just in front of your right cheek
>>4157572>he needs fast focus>he needs AUTOAMTIC fast focus>he shoots anything but gas stat.....carefully posed professional modelsPFFT.stop taking snapshits. if you use your camera for anything but fashion portraiture you are using it wrong stop having fun. reeeeeEEEEEEEEEEE
>>4157573>I have good night vision, but I'm not a cat or a vampire, and neither are you. In reality you just shoot in good light and rely on autofocus, another SLR crutch because TTL manual focusing is a shitshow.Cope>Fast lens faggotry was started by and for SLR homos.Virtually every ultrafast lens up to 1989 that wasn't for space exploration or military use was a rangefinder lens (or just a viewfinder camera lens like the one for the 1933 Minifex. From the 1961 Canon f/0.95 for the Canon 7 to the 1976 Leica M 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux. Even to this day the vast majority of sub-f/1.4 lenses are all for mirrorless cameras.
>>4157581That's not on account of extreme demand, but on account of germans being better innovators than the japanese, and rangefinders making lens design super easy. Not many people used those, and those that did weren't after a crutch like a brighter viewfinder. They were specific tools for making art. Their eyes worked in the dark, the lens was just to raise the shutter speed. SLR fags buy fast lenses just for the brighter viewfinder and shoot at f5.6 regardless.Today all the fast lenses are mirrorless because DSLRs are dead (as they should be) and the mediocre optics engineers in japan finally being able to make them on a larger scale. No correlation.
>>4157588>They were specific tools for making art.Gear does not art make. They were for low light coping.
>>4157595Oh look a pleb.
>>4157595>doesn't understand the difference between wanting a fast lens for its unique effect on the nature of the photograph and the expanded range of scenarios that can be captured, and what SLR fags do, never buy slower than f2.8 so they can see what's in focus betterits particularly egregious on DSLRs. the fresnel screens are not precision focus aids to begin with, so any loss of brightness makes it all indistinct.
>>4157581>Leitz 90 f/1Navy lens, you're pushing it with that one.>>4157588>the mediocre optics engineers in japan finally being able to make them on a larger scaleThe Canon 50mm f/0.95 was the fastest photographic lens available at its time also most large aperture lenses being made today are chink. It wasn't a matter of mediocrity even if it's true that most optical formulas were pioneered by the Germans starting with Carl Friedrich Gauss himself, a true genius like few others in history, a child prodigy who mogged established mathematicians as a kid already despite coming from a poor family. You may wonder why Germany struggles to produce geniuses nowadays and I'll tell you why: Blut und Boden. That is German for "blood and soil", the two constituents of a Nation. Magic dirt isn't a thing so the muttified Germany is doomed. Thanks, America.
>>4157597NASA lens, Kubrick got one of the seven or so copies.>>4157598Actually the standard focusing screen on DSLRs isn't of much use when you open too wide, you need a high precision matte for that.
>>4157608It's not of much use for anything except being a crappy viewfinder.
