>>4248497
/p/ used to be a good source for that

>>4248497
why is the autofocus on my liveview more accurate than autofocus in my optical view?


I t5hought my Sigma Art lens was sharp on my Canon90D but seeing pictures with people shooting with vintage lenses I am suprised. Should I get a vintage? Which one?

>>4248508
Was it? The old sticky is straight up insane with its 1000px size recommendation and raw file wouldn't get uploaded anyway.
>Error: Maximum file size allowed is 5 MB

>>4248566
People would upload elsewhere and just post the link. Post processing threads used to be very common.
>>4248545
Different autofocus systems. Live view uses exactly what's hitting the sensor, through ovf it uses a separate af module. If you're consistently front or back focusing, that's what AF fine tune is for.

>>4248545
>Should I get a vintage? Which one?
Industar 50-2 :)

>>4248508
Free file hosting is dead.
>mega (PITA)
>litterbox (temporary)
There is nothing else.

File: canon.jpg (250 KB, 1500x1009)

250 KB JPG

>>4248497
im not a photographer but ive seen a lot of hype around the g7x. ive got a g9 and wouldnt mind learning a thing or two about photography with it.
where do i start in terms of settings and post processing? how do i get digital to look like film?

what different "styles" of photography are there for me to look into? 'street photography' seems like such a large blanket term. thanks

File: 1693434847580807.jpg (44 KB, 1024x961)

44 KB JPG

>take pic of person and something in the background, both are in focus
>try same with my camera but need something like f/12 which would demand impossible shutterspeed and iso.
wtf kind of settings do i use to replicate what my phone does normally

>>4249173
In theory you should be able to shoot at f12 and push the ISO up and still get the same quality of pic, but I can't help thinking it would be noisy as shit cos it cant do the trickery a phone can.

>>4249175
I guess 6400 iso isnt that bad nowadays. Its just weird id need it in full sunlight because i want to have both a person and a building or other background stuff in focus.

>>4249179
After years of chasing the blurriest background, I'm finding I want more and more in focus these days.

>>4249173
AI noise reduction and a 24mm lens

What's the point of a good film camera body? The film does the light capture and all the lenses are manual focus. As long as the light meter works, does the camera body actually matter for film?

>>4248545
>why is the autofocus on my liveview more accurate than autofocus in my optical view?
Different AF systems. OVF AF has a more complicated light path creating potential alignment issues with lenses. Use AF micro adjustment to get the same accuracy you get on LiveView.

>I t5hought my Sigma Art lens was sharp on my Canon90D but seeing pictures with people shooting with vintage lenses I am suprised.
You're probably looking at RAW shots from your camera vs. processed shots from others. Even Sigma ART benefits from post processing.

>>4249523
>What's the point of a good film camera body? The film does the light capture and all the lenses are manual focus. As long as the light meter works, does the camera body actually matter for film?
Features. Build quality / weather resistance. Light meter accuracy. Flash metering. Max shutter speed. Ergonomics. And for AF film bodies, AF performance.

None of this directly affects film image quality, but some of it indirectly does. Metering, flash metering, AF performance on bodies with AF...

>>4249539
Cool thanks. I didn't know there were AF film bodies

>>4248919
catbox, pomf lain... many options out there retard.

Does having a fast aperture matter on a lens you plan on using for landscape? You're going to stop it down anyways, right?

>>4250020
Not directly, because you'll probably be at f8 and above most of the time, but most good zooms are at least f4.

>>4250020
Maybe for nighttime landscape. With full moon, IBIS/OIS and a fast lens, handheld is doable. Other than that, not really. Situations where you'd want more than f/4 worth of foreground blur are very rare.

How do you organize your photos.

I currently use this kind of layout:

Directory for each year's pictures (in JPEG). e.g. Pictures <year>.

Separate directory for camera raw & scanned photos. It's kind of like a staging area.

import/raw/<year>/<month>/<day>/

It kind of works, but I'm lazy and lots of stuff tend to accumulate in the raw dir. Any better suggestions?

I got a new camera on ebay and I can't tell if the camera/lens focus is off because maybe it's been dropped or if i'm just taking terrible pictures because I have a terrible monitor. Is there a way for me to check without getting a new monitor?

>>4248545
Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm. They're cheap and fucking brilliant. I can also recommend their 135mm, so nice to use... Unfortunately mine is full of dust. Coz it's old as fuck.

>>4250355
are you retarded
just post a pic here

>>4248497
DP Review posts full size RAW on their reviews.
Not sure about anywhere else.

>>4248545
EF mount is not the best if you want to play around with vintage stuff - it has a pretty long flange distance and many vintage lenses cannot be used.
Copying from stack exchange:
>Forget using Canon FD lenses on EOS cameras. You can't get infinity focus with those lenses without adding additional optics.1 This is because at 42mm the FD mount has a shorter registration distance (a/k/a flange focal distance) than the 44mm of the EF mount. If you insist on using non-EF lenses on EOS cameras, lenses made for mounts with longer registration distances than the EF mount would be preferred. The 44.5mm Minolta A-mount is out due to mechanical clearance issues. Ditto for the Olympus OM mount. That leaves Nikon F and Pentax K as the most likely candidates.

But honestly - you're unlikely to find vintage lenses that beat modern stuff, and you'll have to pay big money for the privilege. Old lenses are usually preferred for character rather than IQ. And they usually work better on mirrorless cameras.

When photographers offer portrait packages and have stuff like
>standard session: 5 edited/retouched photos
Does that mean you deliver only the 5 edited photos? Or do you guys give them everything you shot along with the 5 of those to edit?

File: Screenshot 2023-11-07 at (...).png (1.04 MB, 646x976)

1.04 MB PNG

just scratched my 35mm. is it over, bros?

>>4251241
Supposedly doesn't do a whole of a lot, but would have me fuming.

>>4251260
nothing apparently, even at narrow apertures. but I'm pissed as fuck...

what's a good digital camera that replicates the quality of disposable ones?

my mom gave me an old digital camera from 2009 but the photos all have these white spots in the same areas. is this dust or dead pixels or what?

File: IMG_0028.jpg (1.28 MB, 3648x2736)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4251846
forgot pic

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot SX120 IS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	6.00 - 60.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	1980:01:01 00:00:52
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3648
Image Height	2736
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	1.310 m
White Balance	Tungsten
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	224
Image Number	102-0028

>>4251241
just made a test at a clear blue sky with F22 and it doesn't appear at all. the scratch is just too superficial on the glass.

I'm still pissed off. Even more because the way it occurred.

>>4251860
Feels bad bro.
This is why I leave a uv filter on my camera at all times.
>Muh IQ
I'll take the hit

File: 0743b7fe36b70c8af71c51297(...).jpg (191 KB, 644x960)

191 KB JPG

I can't find the recommendation thread so excuse me if this is in the wrong place. Artfag here. I need a <$1500 camera for photographing my drawings and paintings. What should I buy?

>>4251972
Full frame + 4 shot pixel shift for color accuracy/no false detail/no noise is the ideal scanning setup before blowing five figures on medium format digital and dedicated art scanners.

The lens is most of what decides your budget. Bodies can be had for a steal. Lenses hold their value much better because they will most likely work as new for 25-50 years.

If I were you I'd do
>sony a7riii + LA-EA3 adapter + minolta 100mm f2.8 macro
It would be manual focus only but the entire setup wouldn't come in much higher than $1500 if you bought smart. Sony's autofocusing long macro is optically about as good, only sharper wide open (which you wouldn't use) and 9x more expensive. Sony also makes a cheap autofocus 50mm f2.8 macro but getting that close could interfere with lighting depending on subject size.
>Pentax K1 + Pentax d fa 100mm f2.8 macro WR
Does what you need, not much else, the lens selection for some purposes is simultaneously bad and expensive but it has your use case covered quite well and would be slightly cheaper, with autofocus.

>>4251979
PS: do not fall for the LA-EA4 meme for focusing screw drive lenses, the SLT loses sharpness and 1/3 stop of light, if you want to spend more on a lens but not that much more just buy a manual macro lens from laowa

>>4251979
>>4251981
Thanks anon

File: IMG_3073.jpg (724 KB, 2224x3336)

724 KB JPG

Dumbass question but do you think I’ll get more likes on instagram if I use longer focal lengths with lots of bokeh? Just feels like nobody cares about wider focal lengths with large depths of field. Like, if you look at the hashtag for the Canon EOS R6, #canonr6, all the top posts are for really long focal lengths.

Anyway I know this is dumb but what do you think

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS RP
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 8.3.2 (iOS)
Photographer	Jeff Patterson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:05:18 20:51:40
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2224
Image Height	3336
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4252811
>Practice light and camera settings on a pile of pillows or something if you need training
any other good little practice advice like this?

File: MP7A0193.jpg (4.89 MB, 4367x2911)

4.89 MB JPG

How do you settle on a focal length?

I have 28, 35, 50, and 85mm primes. I go through phases where I really like one length and go at it for awhile. Then I have a time with the 28 where I wish I had the bokeh from a 50 or 85, or I have the 50 and wish I could get wider to fully fit a building in the frame.

My wife loves 50 and doesn’t share this anxiety. She’s shot professionally and has stuck with 50 for 15 years. I know it can be done

Any thoughts or comments? This feels dumb to post but I think about this a ton.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.0.0 (iOS)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:11 22:42:04
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: file.jpg (311 KB, 1600x1067)

311 KB JPG

>>4252905
I like 28, and always come back to it. Have 6-7 different 28s at this point. With fast ones, you can even have some bokeh. I'm currently thinking pretty hard about picking up a Leica Q.
At the same time I know what you mean, sometimes I have an urge to throw something else on. Whatever keeps you shooting, I say.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS RP
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.2 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2020:03:27 00:00:27
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4252905
24,35,50 depending on where I'm going

if I ever find a good 28-70 or 16-50 with a constant 2.8 (I know there are many but I don't like those I tried) that I like and is smol and lightweight maybe I'll convert to ZOOM

>>4252979
2.8 zooms are never going to be smol and lightweight. I have an MD 35-70 f3.5 that is actually surprisingly portable, if but you have to be ok with going vintage.

File: PB120119.jpg (3.55 MB, 4608x3456)

3.55 MB JPG

Just bought this e-m10 mkii second hand and noticed there seem to be a lot of bad pixels, is this normal or should I be looking to return it? It's on about 20k shot count. I haven't run the pixel mapping in the menu because I don't want to conceal the problem if I do have to return it.

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

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

>>4248497
I've got a Nikon D3500 with the 18-55 and 70-300 kit lenses. I've got the opportunity to do some food photography for a restaurant and their cookbook, are there any vintage lenses to look for? Specifically I'd like a macro lens because the extension tubes I've got are a pain, or something that handles low light better than my kit lenses (it's a very dark restaurant).

What' the different between video camera and camera with video function?

how do i get a capture one license for free. shit is blazing fast on Apple Silicon

File: CLUE.png (1.05 MB, 753x840)

1.05 MB PNG

>>4248497
I got the Canon M50 with the 15-45mm (f/3.5-6.3) and the 55-200mm (f/4.5-6.3). I am now thinking of getting a 11-22mm (f/4.0-5.6) on sale.

Reason because I want to shoot interiors and also vlog. I found the 15-45 lens focal range is way too zoomed in for the cramp interiors I am filming. I really want to get the right shot thats why I willing to fork over the dough for this new lens.

The interiors I want to film are quite dark. I found it difficult on my 15-45mm on the lowest fstop and attempting to keep the ISO below 1600. Im also stuck to 60 frames and 125 shutter speed as that looks best for my movies.

Should I get the lens? Its performance in dark conditions is bad due to the fstop/speed capabilities.

Or maybe drop the frames and shutter speed just for those difficult shots? I watched a lot of vids on this lens and am undecided.

New hobbyist looking to get into photography in a small way. I'm not interested in the artsy (blown out bokeh backgrounds, street/portraiture) aspects of photography, I really want to capture subjects fully in focus as close to exactly the way I see them as possible and I don't particularly care about separating the background as long as my subject is sharp. Most of what I'd like to take pictures of is small things I see when I'm hiking such as insects, mushrooms, snakes and other critters but I'd also like to be able to take decent landscapes. Does a dedicated ILC camera make sense for my use case or would I be better served with a point and shoot like the Olympus Tough series or just phone snapshitting?

>>4253235
What's the target medium? Phone? 1440p monitor? Facebook? 6x4 prints? 8x12 prints? Bigger?

>>4253240
4:3, if you need more you're faggot or chud

>>4253235
Sony a7riii + 40mm f2.5 G.

>>4253235
gx85/em5ii/ any other mft body 12-32/any other mft standard zoom

>>4253272
Honorable mentions
SL3 18-55 kit from canon
a6300 16-50 snoy kit

z5 or a7iii? I'm looking for something with reliable af, video is a plus/whatever. Feels like both these cameras are really close but I have no idea I haven't used either

>>4253299
The a7iii has better autofocus and video
The z5 won’t say “lens error” when wet and has better color science and less vignetting (anywhere from 2 to 4 times the light around the edges)

>>4253235
Fujifilm x-t4. It’s what snoys and foolturds wish they had but are too insecure to buy without ending their /p/ gear flexing career.

You get lots of very small primes, very good zooms including that small sigma 18-50, and cheap manual lenses like so
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1K7K5GesQ

It also has nearly class leading video. The xt5, xh2, and xh2s are class leading period.

>>4253303
>xt4
>6.5 stop ibis
Dayum. 5 is enough for me because a gentle breeze or breathing is too much motion by 1/3.

>>4253300
CONSIDER
https://m.dpreview.com/news/0261142298/lensrental-discovers-cracked-sensor-mounts-inside-some-of-its-sony-a7-series-rental-fleet

People tend to ditch their sony cams after a bit and never go back. Maybe, one day, they started thinking the autofocus was broken or the ergos were contributing to camera shake

Or maybe the sensor mounts fucking broke because its cheap shit plastic. Sony IBIS literally destroys itself.

So, other than here, where am I supposed to post pictures? Insta basically fucks off because square ratios, but what else is there, Flickr? Twitter?

Is there anything I need to check when getting a used camera? Everything looked good.... the battery door and compartment, buttons works, continous shooting, metering back lcd viewfinder, I forgot to check sensor and the body looked fine. What was something you were blindsided by when you got a used camera?

>>4254485
serial number showed it was grey market which is a problem if you buy Nikon and ever want to use their repair shops. Third party repair shops will generally still work on it np.

>>4253648
You can post normal formats to insta, no problem

Anyone know of any online sites for camera gear that don't charge sales tax? Over the past few years they've become increasingly rare. I used to use mpb quite a bit but they've changed to charging sales tax.

Ideally, a site specializing in used camera gear that doesn't give a fuck about sales tax.

Are there any ~$300 or less long zooms for f mount worth getting? My buddy's dad has a d750 and a kit zoom, he showed interest in birding when I showed him the shots I got with my 70-300. It can be slow as long as the shots caught during broad daylight are nice to look at. Ideally something that goes longer than 300mm I think

>>4248497
discuss.pixls.us

>>4254485
My camera had a internal non-removable battery that powered some hardware that remembered the clock and internal settings. For the longest time it was dead but through always keeping a full charge battery pack inside it managed to charge itself up again. Check to see if that internal battery is fine

>>4248497
What are some must have lenses/sizes? T. Snoy Alpha user

Uuuuh I just installed lightroom and whenever I click on a preview photo to start developing it sets at -1.80 exposure +14 contrast -50 black, making it shit instantly for no reason
can I just start at 0 and see what I'm doing?

File: IMG_4072.jpg (53 KB, 678x452)

53 KB JPG

How do you take photos as if they're two perspective drawing? I see this a lot for architectural photography but I can’t for the love of god figure out how to do it even after googling. Do I need a wide lens? Is it possible at all taken with an iPhone?

[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	678
Image Height	452
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_4071.jpg (76 KB, 678x452)

76 KB JPG

>>4255647
More reference pic

[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	678
Image Height	452
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4255647
You can pretend to have a wide lens by shooting a panorama,. preferably on a tripod.

recommendation for a compact mirror less camera around 700 usd to be my first upgrade from a phone

I was thinking Eos m200 but no viewfinder and dead mount
or
A6400 but bad RAWs

I'm from Brazil so brand choice is limited to Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon

I want to do some street photography so something that doesn't stands out is better

>>4255684
A6400 raws are fine. Just use a full frame lens and turn off vignetting correction in camera. Samyang af 35mm f2.8 is all you need.

>>4255647
You need a shift lens to go full artsy fartsy

Or a pentax k1 and a versatile tripod

>>4251775
yes

>>4255691
>shift lens
Huh I guess this is the answer. What’s the easiest way to replicate it with an iPhone other than just using photoshop? I don’t wanna use faggy external lenses.

I guess it’s not impossible if what you’re capturing is on actual eye level, but what if I want to shoot a tall building? This seems doable with an app.

I'm going on an international trip. Ideally across Asia (India, Cambodia, Thailand, etc). I want to make some cinematic vlog videos about touring these places.

I have a Fuji XT2 right now. The image stabilization isn't great, so in low light conditions it's guaranteed to look like a blurry mess. It's a lovable camera but it just doesn't suit my needs right now.

Should I get a gimbal, or a Glidecam? Should I sell the XT2 body, and get a more modern Fuji? Or sell everything and switch to Sony? Any suggestions or advice? Thanks.

>>4255926
Has iPhone got a built in panorama mode? Just use that.

>>4255930
IS on xt2 is still god tier, are you trolling

>>4255933
Yeah but what if I’m shooting a tall building which requires me to tilt the camera, thus making the vertical lines distorted? I guess it’s only doable with photoshop

>>4255930
>>4255960
x-t2 doesn't have in-body ois. If you only care about video then sell it. If you care about having fun with still photography then never sell it

First camera

Should i get a
Sony A6400 x Nikon Z50 x Eos R100

Use: street photo, 1080p60 video, compact discreet camera with viewfinder

>>4256440
You might consider a Nikon or Canon APS-C, they'll probably match the form factor of the sony better.

>>4256440
Oops i meant R10 not R100

File: 1671936031263502s.jpg (2 KB, 125x103)

2 KB JPG

Beginner film photographer looking for advice on which digital camera to get.

I've been shooting film on my konica autoreflex t3 for a solid year now and I want to go digital.

Any recommended full frame (mirrorless preferably) models?
I read that full frame is best if I decide to adapt my hexanon AR lenses but are there any specific models out there that just work better for this setup? I have a good selection of konica glass that I dont want to just bench if possible.
(Is adapting older lenses even worth it?)

>>4257188
A7ii, RP, R8, Z5, Z6, S5, fucking anything really, all the difference made during last decade was for AF.

File: Hirohito.jpg (215 KB, 440x494)

215 KB JPG

>>4257298
Thank you for the suggestions, time to go over the models that you linked and stoooody.

>>4257188
If you want to adapt film era lenses the sensor cover glass thickness plays a big role for the IQ. From memory Nikon does best here and Sony worst

File: 1696619168150280.jpg (101 KB, 610x600)

101 KB JPG

I'm considering buying a ring flash for my EOS R50 to mainly take photos of figures, but everyone I asked about it was against it. They told me I should get some cheap lamps instead and diffuse the light. I don't really want to mess with too many lights, I just want to know why does flash considered bad? Currently I use my built in flash for photos and honestly I like them, except the fact, that if the lens is extended half of the flash light won't reach the object I'm photographing.

>>4257305
Avoid sony cameras they are unreliable and have bad color rendition and LOTS of vignetting (over 3 stops even on $$$$ lenses)

File: camera.jpg (269 KB, 1209x704)

269 KB JPG

I've got a $200 gift card, making this T7 total $239. Is this a good buy for a first DSLR? Purpose is planetary photography, so I'll likely end up also needing a 75-300mm lens.

>>4257432
The T7 should be fine for a beginner.

But consider if you need all these accessories. If you are new this might not be an easy decision. My impressions are:
>do you need a bag and is that one any good?
>a charger and strap are always included
>I never used macro adapters, but wouldn't expect magic from them and they won't help you with planets
>the T7 has a built in flash (which is less powerfull than this one, but this also might be a shit flash)
>A second battery is nice
>these filters will be useless, except for the ND
>a remote trigger is nice
>so is a SD card and a place to store them
>a micro fibre cloth is 1EUR where I live, I never sprayed anything on my lenses to clean them
>these flash diffusors will soften the flash a little, but will most likely never be used
>the tripod and tripod head are shit, even for a starter and especially if you plan to use it often
>a SD card adapter is useful if your machine can't read SDs

Consider buying a used camera and make a list of gear and accessories you plan on using (or think you will be). It might save money (but waste time) to buy the core gear first and then figure out what you actually need in the field.

>>4257432
lol

>>4257452
Why "lol"? It's a $450 dslr for $200. That alone is worth the price. You must be 18 or older to post here.

>>4250132
I have two folders one named JPG and one named RAW. From there I have mostly identical folders with names like landscapes, locations, wildlife, pets, people, vehicles. from there I have specific subfolders for example in the wildlife folder it's just the name of the animals. In the locations folder it would be areas I specifically name them things like, "bobs farm", "x river" and so on. I find it easier and faster to find the photos I'm looking for instead of trying to remember specifically which week/month/year I took them

File: 359205269_c16aa03cf9_o.jpg (307 KB, 1024x685)

307 KB JPG

Is there such a thing as a mirror telephoto lens with an adjustable focal length? Like a 200-600. Ideally for an F-mount, too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Photographer	Elliot Lowe
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2007:01:11 14:45:42
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	66.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	685
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

What is going to be the first camera maker to release a digital rangefinder (digital rf coupling with the lens)? Leica when they realize all L-mount lenses report focus distance? Fuji when they realize this is what xpro users actually wanted? Pixii?

File: IMG_9443.jpg (561 KB, 1672x1115)

561 KB JPG

Why is this little shit so blurry? It's cropped, but the rest of the picture wasn't in focus either.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:25 11:26:22
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4257541
Back focus and probably motion blur. Detailed small birds usually need much faster than 1/500 shutter if they're moving, otherwise you can pan to track them to reduce their relative motion across the frame.

I'm confused, do you need to download a Canon picture style profile and install it through the EOS utility or can you just use the settings that people provide and do it in camera?

Does installing it through the utility do something extra?

>>4252905
ultimately it's best if you come to terms with missing shots. there will always be a shot you can't get with what you have at hand.

>>4257456
It would be fine if it wasn't for planetary photography, there are better ways to spend the gift card if you want to do astro. Ask in astro thread.

>>4257623
installing via EOS Utility is easier. Just connect the camera via wi-fi and do it, take a min or two, max.

greetings /p/, friend of mine has an Lumix G7 and needs an lense for greater distances to take images of carbon based lifeforms from an cruise ship, what would you recommend? I have zero knowledge about that stuff so bear with me here

can i get some recs for some good budget tier entry level general purpose lighting?

>>4257791
Godox for flashes and strobes and literally anything with a 98+ CRI rating for continuous. Reflectors and gels, whatever.

File: Screenshot_20231126-133406.png (1.93 MB, 1080x1731)

1.93 MB PNG

Hello.
I have a few small, worn out pictures from the 2000s where you went to a studio and stood in front of some backgrounds.

Is there a way to save them? Can I have them scanned and restored to print in a bigger size? Or no?

>>4257817
>Is there a way to save them? Can I have them scanned and restored to print in a bigger size? Or no?
Sure. Find a scanning service close to you. Get them done in a high enough resolution. The "restoration" you'll probably have to do yourself in Photoshop or whatever when you get the digital scans. Or just find someone who can do it for you. Should be easy enough unless they're totally fucked up. Then just on to a printing service.

I'm a poorfag looking for a decent general purpose telephoto lens for E mount. I'm currently stuck between a beat to shit A-mount Sony 70-200 2.8 G or an EF mount Sigma EX 70-200 2.8 (cheaper). Which one would be a better buy if adapters (LA-EA4 and an MC-11) are already included with the lenses?

>>4248497
your phone, faggot

There is a metric for high ISO noise, and it's just noise, it's measured in percents and i'm very happy about that. But is there a metric that measures how even noise is? I've recently sidegraded to an older generation of my camera, I love it plenty, but if I'll take a photo at iso 6400 and then push it +1ev, my older generation camera starts showing a pattern in noise, bottom part is tinted purple, top part is fine though some specific pattern is still present. I would love to be able to learn about that just by reading reviews. So, is it measured? Is there a name for "an uniformity of noise" on high ISOs?

>get gig at local college from a friend who works there, shot one of their events
>made a cool grand+
now I'm hungry for more, what do I do? list services on fiver? marketplace? I do portraits of my family too so I have a wireless 2 flash system and some softboxes and stands
do I need to learn to edit those meme looks like the desaturated everything but yellows/oranges/reds and greens

File: 1692886737524939.jpg (14 KB, 676x960)

14 KB JPG

How do I make CR3 thumbnails work in Windows Explorer without converting?

File: introrawc.jpg (57 KB, 520x286)

57 KB JPG

>>4248497
I want an affordable compact to take with me when I'm out and taking pics in the wild. I have a DSLR but I keep that at home, and my smartphone camera is shit because it's just a dinky Tracphone. Are sub 300 compact digitals even worth it? If so what are some decent ones? I like to take pics of small things like flowers and bugs, so a fixed zoom is something I'm trying to avoid.

File: 1674336799232838.jpg (3.56 MB, 5184x3456)

3.56 MB JPG

Context is a Canon EOS 60D with Tamron 18-270 and Canon 10-22

1. My camera sometimes has focus issues especially in anything other than perfect daylight. It will cycle through the focal ring to one extreme, then back to the other, then display a red rectangle overlaid on the screen. From memory, this issue didn't always happen, it's only been a problem for about 4 years. Is there anything I can do to fix it?

2. Many photos I take seem to not be crisply in focus. Pic related on the Tamron lens is wholly not in focus and has noticeable visible fringing even near the centre of the image. I took this photo about a year ago and I couldn't tell you what I was supposed to be focusing on.

3. Leading on from 2, when I take photos I have difficulty telling on the camera's screen if they are in fully in focus or not owing to its small size, and I'm not confident enough with setting manual focus to be able to reliably focus it this way.

4. Many photos I take come out dark unless I take them under sunny blue skies. Even when I heighten the ISO and use a longer exposure time, they still seem muted. Do I just have to increase the ISO even more and edit out the noise later? I can't lower the exposure time too much otherwise they end up being blurry.

5. The chart in this article https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/lens-sharpest-aperture-sweet-spot suggests that optimal sharpness can be obtained by using a few stops up from the maximum aperture. Searching suggests that the optimal values are f/8-11 for the Tamron and f/5.6-8 for the Canon. Does this seem correct? I'm confused about the difference between the lens's advertised maximum aperture and how it relates to the aperture I select on my camera when taking a photo.

6. Could anyone recommend a decent prime lens that isn't too expensive that could potentially solve the above issues? The purpose would be for general travel (not landscapes), so I imagine I can get away with anything around 35-40mm.

>>4257820
Thank you friend :^)

File: lake.jpg (423 KB, 1280x1057)

423 KB JPG

How do I get my modern mirrorless camera to look like my old Nikon D40 shots? I found when I moved to my mirrorless camera I got what I expected, which was better noise performance and dynamic range mostly, but editing became a lot less fun. I don't like the colors I get out of my camera and everything looks kinda sterile. I noticed looking back at my D40 shots (they're really nothing special) that I really liked the colors and overall "look". These are RAWs processed in Darktable, but I actually didn't have to do much, I don't even think I messed with colors at all usually. With my new (ish) camera I have to adjust saturation, contrast, etc and when I'm done I don't like the result as much. I feel like I'm nuts because I've looked at comparisons and I don't really buy the whole CCD thing. Is there some setting I should be messing with to try to get this kind of look?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto

I have a FF body
I have a 50
I have an 85
And I am tired of this not paying for itself.

Is shooting portraits and products still a profitable activity if you have no interest in being a slave to the airline schedule and hanging around with snobs and future starvation victims? I do not live in NYC/SF/etc and will never, I can afford to live somewhere nice. Or should I just buy a telephoto and try selling wildlife prints on amazon?

I really do NOT want to do wedding photography. I would never use the gear for it (huge "soulless protog" zooms with very little range, backup bodies, 35mm f1.2+85mm f1.2 primes that women love and I think make for really fucking shitty photos) for anything else and to be honest with you I fucking hate having anything to do with being at weddings. My own wedding was bad enough.

>>4259106
Colors come from lenses rite? Use your old lenses. Also you're using darktable. Of course colors are hard to work with. Darktable doesn't support newer cameras well so you're basically trying to profile your camera from scratch. Try pirating capture one. They're not on a purely subscription model yet.

>>4259370
>why isn't my gear paying for itself?
>should i get more gear?
Maybe you just aren't good at photography.

>>4259379
I haven't even tried to seek out clients because I would need to buy more gear just to compete with what the other 50 photographers within an hour drive can offer. I have shot at weddings before, but for free so only using a 50 was supplemented by 2-3 other people in the family bringing their cameras so it didn't matter if I couldn't take a single row group shot indoors for a lack of room

As it stands I'd have to turn jobs down because of a lack of zoom, turn jobs down if the weather doesn't cooperate (that's every day outside of a 2 month period) I'd have to cancel, and everyone else has 2+ bodies, a mountain of lenses, and a studio.

It's not looking good in this pay to play profession

>>4259389
Photography is retarded because everyone is doing it so whatever retard buys the most lenses for his r5 basically wins by being able to shoot everything on request. Video works better because you can move and you don’t even need amazing gear. If a family wants a group shot indoors you can pan from several angles, ez.

File: LED_Arbeitsstrahler-55W.jpg (45 KB, 592x592)

45 KB JPG

>>4248497
I just got pic related from Aldi Süd
>55 W, 25 €, CRI > 90
Whadda ya think?

>>4259370
>Darktable doesn't support newer cameras well so you're basically trying to profile your camera from scratch.
Damn didn't know this part, I assumed it treated all cameras the same. I'll consider C1, thanks. Will give a cheap manual adapter for my old lenses a try too.

>>4259445
>not >95
garbage

how do i decide on a tripod

>>4259496
write down the things you need it to have, then see what in the market offers what you need, easy

File: DSC_9305.5.jpg (1.16 MB, 1494x782)

1.16 MB JPG

How easy is it to tell that I created this out of two different photos?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:30 15:30:37
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4259641
At 2006-tier resolution? Not easy.

File: DSC_9305.5-4.jpg (2.18 MB, 4979x2607)

2.18 MB JPG

>>4259644
Here's something bigger, though I guess my question's already been answered by that.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:30 16:07:23
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4979
Image Height	2607

>>4259370
Are you sure you want to make money with your photography? It sounds like you're enjoying taking pictures as an artistic pursuit, but loathe everything that could monetize it. Maybe you would be happier getting paid from somewhere else while being free to shoot whatever you want.