>>4299373
Answer a: the one you have with you
Answer b: Buy om-d e-m5 iii and 17mm prime or nikon z6ii and 35mm f1.8
Answer c: You’re not doing photography as a hobby unless you shoot film, buy a 5 pack of portra 400 and a canonet ql17, dont forget the beanie

gear thread closed

>>4299373
it's completely viable for stills with the exception of high ISO, keep it at 800 or below unless you like blood rain or AI slop denoising. the rebel t2i/t3i/60D family punch way above what you'd expect for the time and entry level status, especially if you throw on custom firmware (magic lantern) to open up extra features, and still take a very nice shot with even cheap lenses (personal recommendation: the EFS 24mm 2.8 pancake, if you get a good copy it's WAY sharper and nicely rendered corner to corner than a $150-new lens has any right to be) but of course better glass is even better. learn to edit raw and at proper res, not on a 3" phone screen, even your old rabal with the kit lens will embarass phone photos, but don't tell iToddler Pro 17 Max Ultra owners that. probably the models that put the 'canon colors' really in the mind of a lot of people.
>should spend my money on good lenses instead?
you already have a camera and at least one lens I'm assuming. go out, shoot without the pressure of being on a limited time trip, and figure out where your kit has a weakness or disappointments you if it does anywhere.
t. owner of a 14 year old 550D that refuses to die and still makes me smile

The only extra lens you really, truly need is a small lens. Everyone needs a small lens, they're easy to pack and dont hit door frames.

EF 40mm f2.8.

File: IMG_9447.jpg (3.35 MB, 3648x2736)

3.35 MB JPG

>>4299373
>>4299402
Seconding ‘answer a’. The one you have with you is the best camera, especially when you’re just coming back to the hobby. This burst of interest may be temporary, so just ride it out with your golden oldie until you’re sure you want to invest more into the hobby. The more you play with it, the more you’ll understand its limitations in [current year], too, and understand for yourself what you want to upgrade when you buy another camera.
>t. snapshitter
pic related: took it with a cyber-shot w180 cuz it was ‘what I had with me’

[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	3648
Image Height	2736
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4299373
what the fuck does "viable" mean. Did people not take any photos back in the days when this camera came out because it was inadequate or something

>>4299451
Probably "does it outdo a modern phone in a dimly lit restaurant"
If that, no not easily, early canon sensors were pretty fucking shit unless you shot it like film

>>4299466
You're entitled to your opinion as is OP but I have never preferred a phone over any garbage dslr from back in the day. Sharpening, hdr and processing phones slap on high ISO photos look so bad to me. Even in good conditions the small sensors just do not look good. mft and even old four thirds cameras look better too. I hear people say shit like mft is useless because phones outdo it then look at the phone photos they're using as examples and I feel like I'm insane. It's never even been close.

>>4299469
A flagship smart phone will take just as good quality if not better, than what OP is proposing to use.

In todays world unless you're a serious hobbyist, or professional a phone is enough. That's the honest truth.

The exception to all this is if you need a telephoto lens, then yes even just being a guy who wants to take photos of birds while on hikes a phone won't even come close to even a 15 yo DSLR or whatever.

>>4299550
>A flagship smart phone will take just as good quality if not better, than what OP is proposing to use.
Two problems with that bud

First, you're stuck using a gross phablet meant for corralled herds of NPCs who don't know the freedom of using a real computer (because corporations got sick of them owning their data instead of renting it)
Second, it doesn't actually look as good. Maybe the high ISOs will be smeary (which vanishes on a 6" screen) instead of grainy (which looks better on a REAL screen or print) but under the high ISOs even these crappy APS-C DSLRs just look more real. Even base ISO, good light phone shots look like smeared shit. Even zoomies figured this out and started buying so many digishits they pumped prices up significantly. Computational photography was the death of phone cameras. Next thing you know, zoomies will realizes phones are a form of data enslavement and they'll start buying up thinkpads so they can own their files again.

File: Cafeteria.jpg (493 KB, 1280x1707)

493 KB JPG

>>4299562
>Thinkpad

>>4299571
Only men (specifically gay men) would like to see you using a specific computer, phone, watch brand, camera brand, etc. Most 4chan memes purporting to represent typical female opinions were actually made by gay men.

>>4299550
>The exception to all this
or macro, or diffused or bounce flash (off camera especially), or a fast lens for portraits, or a fast lens for sports and action, or decent resolution out of your lens and sensor in general for cropping, or if you want to do focus braketing... Or like others said in this thread, if you want a decent looking photo in general. Phones even at base ISO do all kinds of shit to make it look "good" but it's just coping for the shitty lens and sensor. Phones are wrecked in so many ways by nifty fifties and a full frame DSLR from 2007.

>>4299580
Sports you need a telephoto.

Macro smart phones are pretty good.
Most smart phones have manual setting modes anyway.

>>4299587
For actual macro you want a telephoto lens that's very sharp and can focus to 1:1, as well as diffused flash very close to the subject. You use a fast shutter speed to avoid blur and a small aperture, so a powerful flash is necessary. Phones typically use a wide angle lens and digitally crop, sacrificing sharpness. It's not the same.

>>4299587
All smart phone photos opt for smears over grain. Apparently women like it for selfies.

>>4299591
>Apparently women like it
Yes, women do like to be "smeared".

Need to filter any thread that starts with "Sup" since they're always made by a retard that doesn't know the basics of how to search the web.

>>4299590
What? A telephoto for macro?

You've described what you need to take pictures birds, not flowers and insects.

>>4299683
Macro lenses are usually telephoto, 100mm or more. Good luck focus stacking an insect without flash lol. What I described is a run of the mill setup for real macro photography. Almost nobody uses flash on birds, wtf are you talking about?

>>4299373
OP
I am a real nigger popping in to let you know the true truth, fuck all these other meme repeaters going "the one you have with you" etc

This camera is kind of shitty but that doesn't have to stop you.
For stills it should suffice unless you're doing high requirement shit but the most limiting factor here will be your lens. The actual camera body won't be much better than a current flagship phone shooting RAW, but it will be more ergonomic and easier to interface with tripods/etc and come with a beefier on-cam flash.

I wouldn't want to use this for scanning film negatives or anything where fine details (actual fine detail, not "I can see this leaf haha that's epic shit) matter but for general photography you should be fine at base ISO with a good lens. If you're doing handheld shit you might be better served with cheap micro four thirds bodies with tiny sensors that have better stabilization though, but that's more dependent on what you're trying to shoot/video, however with that said that is what you can expect from this camera.
This thing will rival micro four thirds bodies for stills.
Micro four thirds will surpass it for video.

Your camera is effectively obsolete but anything can take a good still with enough light/tripod so that doesn't mean it's unusable.
Just use it accordingly.

>>4299469
>>4299562
>>4299591
Tell me more about how you've never actually seen a smartphone RAW before.
Any reference to "smear" or "HDR" or "processing" immediately means you are talking about JPEGs or PsuedoJPEG images.
A lot of faggot apps will molest the raw data and re-package it into a post-processed (JPEG, essentially) DNG format but that is not in any way representative of what the real RAWs from phones are supposed to look like.

If you don't have to demosaic and white balance and apply lens corrections to a "RAW" you're not fucking looking at what a phone photo sctually is, but rather what some fag app devs baked into your files.
Side by side, a proper smartphone RAW will actually compete with an entry level DSLR or mirrorless ILC body. They'll be noisy, but they have actually have a trick up their sleeve, low ISOs and very wide apertures so their photons per photosite aren't actually all that bad all things considered.

If you think an ISO 800 shot on a cheap entry level Canon is usable, then you should be totally fine with a legit 50-100 ISO RAW from a phone. You just have to use a non cucked app that won't molest the RAW data with post-processing.
DNG is a RAW capable format.
It doesn't guarantee the content hasn't been fucked with.
Popular hacked apps like "Gcam" are post-process trash that should not be used.
Every YouTuber you see reviewing "RAW" phone shots is a faggot looking at such post-processed NOT RAW images and that much is obvious. They always reference "over sharpening" like, nigger, what? It's supposed to be RAW, there should be no sharpening yet they still make the shit videos not based in any truth because it's all just clickbait garbage.

Smartphones can even be used for astro when used right.
While their optics aren't perfect, they're also primarily diffraction limited and are free of optical distortion due to their tiny form factor. Just like how MFT/APS-C shows less distortion vs FF with crop, phones benefit from that significantly.

>>4299373
>doesn't post a single photo he has taken
people like OP should be killed on sight

>>4299373
Your camera is just as capable as it was when you got it. If you buy a newer and shinier crop camera you get moar megapickles and ISO and snappier autofocus. Nice things but not required for getting back into photography. Use the one you already have until you feel the need to get something better.

>>4299830
Around 10 years ago the first RAW capable smartphone launched. Shortly after, Apple jumped on board, and after that it became more widespread in high end phones. Eventually that trickled down as an expected feature (easy to add, not adding it meant people would buy a competitor's) and now it's commonly used.

10 years ago you NEEDED a DSLR for quality photography as almost everything else was a shitty JPEG machine that output baked trash.
While his camera likely hasn't degraded (indoor smoking can coat a sensor in tar over time, affecting image quality for example) unless he's a degenerate and fucked it up, that doesn't really mean it's "as worth carrying" as it was back when it was new. Times have changed.

If OP has good lenses, yes. The camera will be worth using. If he's rocking a cheap shit kit lens that probably came packaged with it full of chromatic abberation, vignetting, distortion and bloom and other issues then it's probably not going to be much better than a phone.
There's one huge difference that is often ignored though, retards smear their phone lens on sweaty thighs all day and then pull it out expecting to take photos. This leads to shit images. These same fucking retards are less likely to jizz on their DSLR's lens, which is usually behind a lens cap when not in use, so for the average retard cameras can still be a safer choice even if they don't actually win out on a technical level all that much when both are used properly. This is assuming the cheapshit DSLR isn't behind premium glass, premium lenses will change everything but the basic expectation is is that people with cheap DSLRs are using shit lenses and that is why phones are and will remain competitive for many years, or even surpass them.

There's an upcoming sensor for phones coming out that's supposed to be multi-spectral not just RGB. Rather than RGB it'll have ~15 or so wavelength groups and allow for true color capture. Old cams will all be BTFO if this succeeds in market.

>>4299836
imagine believing this lmao, my canon 40d with the kit zoom can take photos no smartphone is capable of

>>4299836
>S-smartphone raws
I can shoot raws on my phone. Dropbox does not just upload raws. I am not using itunes because it is slow as fuck and mass syncing is retarded. So I need special snowflake iphone specific software to get at the raws (specifically, i use ifuse on a linux VM).

Maybe this makes more sense on an android phone, where it's basically a USB drive, and functions like a camera (put the card in your macbooks card slot, there's your raws). But then you lose things you NEED to interact with most people socially like 2 way facetime, group chats in imessage, airdrop, etc. And no matter what sensor tech can't beat physics and any sensor tech phones get, cameras can get if it offers them better performance than competitors.

Btw I have 0 expectations for phone cameras because I have used them. Computational photography is forced to a degree even in proraws and the only ones that approach a PNS with raws are android. But even with computational photography, it's still a small sensor PNS.
>t-true color capture
Nobody ever cares about this, true colors aren't good colors. If it's good colors it'll end up on some sony or nikon a year later like how everyone got aptina's DR tech at once.

>>4299761
That's only one concern of many though. Phone photos are extremely limited in every other way that matters, eg thin dof, telephoto, close focusing, flash, etc. SOOC jpgs looking like shit on phones is not a non issue either when most major camera brands have great camera jpgs. Just being able to swap between a fast prime and a standard zoom, or use an off camera flash, beats phones IMO.

>>4299836
Pre-IS Canon crop kits were optically poor but the 18–55mm 1:3.5–5.6 IS II kit lens bundled with 600D is a good one.

>>4299862
Sounds like a lot of Applel user issues desu.
On Android, raws are easy.
Can you seriously not plug your iPhone into your computer and put it into a "transfer photos" mode or USB mass storage?

>Computational photography is forced to a degree even in proraws
ProRAW is literally choosing to have it post-process your file and give you a baked DNG. It's not raw, despite Apple claiming it is.

>>t-true color capture
Nobody ever cares about this, true colors aren't good colors.
Yes they do, and they are.
Proper color capture will allow better conversion to the output color space which will result in better color saturation without blowing out or fucking up unrelated colors.

>If it's good colors it'll end up on some sony or nikon a year later like how everyone got aptina's DR tech at once.
As this would be different sensor tech it would obviously be able to make its way to all cameras but it would never come to older DSLRs which was my point. It's future tech, coming soon, and may be a game changer. In another 5 or 10 years phones have the potential to get quite good, but these 2010-2015 DSLRs have no room for improvements short of removing their color filters and being used as B&W sensors for higher IQ B&W photography or something niche.

The amount of frustration and copium people are dealing with when trying to use color checkers and still finding inaccuracies in their photos would make more accurate and easier to correct images very welcome.
Imagine if people stopped memeing about "snoy" color science and other shit, and sensors just captured more accurate wavelength data and could be more easily corrected. That's the future, hopefully. Fuji's out here making trans sensors in a 6x6 grid instead of 2x2 bayer but they failed and kept it simple RGB. For every 9 pixels in the 3x3 grid there are 5 greens, 2 are red and 2 are blue. Imagine if three greens were all greens of different wavelengths. It would help a lot but that ain't what we were given.

>>4299925
>Phone photos are extremely limited in every other way that matters, eg thin dof
By not having an interchangeable lens mount, yeah phones are quite limited. There's no denying that but to say they have thin DOF is incorrect. They all have extremely wide apertures but their physical size is tiny, so the DOF is actually quite deep. They perform similarly in DOF to your typical DSLR lens wide open, which is pretty narrow but not unusable.

Not being able to stop down isn't ideal but so long as you focus on the subject your shot should look okay and phone DOF/aperture shouldn't be an issue.

>telephoto
Small sensors usually benefit from a crop factor, making telephoto easier than wide angle.
Besides that there are a bunch of phones that now have secondary lenses/sensors made for telephoto use and some have had physical/optical zoom.

>close focusing
A bunch of phones have macro lenses capable of close focus.

>flash
Cameras win here but some phones actually have a decent flash. Some are quite advanced and will match the color temp of the scene you're shooting in, if desired.

>SOOC jpgs looking like shit on phones is not a non issue either when most major camera brands have great camera jpgs.
If you use an app that lets you turn off the hideous post-processing smartphones can have decent SOOC JPEGs, but you'd need to use a 3rd party app. Easy, but not something you can expect from a normie user so unfortunately yeah most people do get "stuck" with shitty SOOC phone JPEGs.

>Just being able to swap between a fast prime and a standard zoom, or use an off camera flash, beats phones IMO.
Definitely but these are subject to change.
One day a phone may come out with a sensor behind glass, allowing 3rd party lenses to be used or even some way to allow MFT lenses to be attached. If unused, it wouldn't have to add any "bump" to a phone, and putting it to use can be as simple as a 3rd party case with the lens mount/etc on that instead of the phone.

>>4299944
Android user issues be like
>sorry im not switching phones or installing this dumb telegram 4 u we cant be friends

People keep saying the current year is the year you only need a phone but it never happens. it keeps being grain vs smears and tasteful photos vs “touched up” photos ken rockwell would approve of. fact is, most people dont have taste. 50% of the population is of below average intelligence and all of them are armed with credit cards and gullibility.

>>4299373
yes

>>4299373
>How competent is a Canon EOS 600D today
It's not any worse than it was on release day, so unless you think digital photography as a whole was trash in 2010 and only got better couple years ago, you're good to go

>but will it hinder me alot compared to getting a modern camera
That's a tougher one, because obviously it would be easier to capture a fleeting moment with better modern autofocus, or mirrorless EVF that shows you image exactly as sensor sees it, or even even focus peaking as a manual assist. Improvements in sensor technology are also nothing to scoff at, so if you're walking and taking pictures as opposed to doing tripod landscape only, you'll surely appreciate being able to crank iso up to 6400 with usable results.

>or is it still a legit viable option in 2024, and I should spend my money on good lenses instead?
it's legit a viable option and it'll give you tons of pretty pictures as long as you use it right, but between spending money on glass and spending money on switching to new ecosystem, I'm honestly not sure. I think it depends on your budget, because using old canon lenses in 2024 is definitely one cheap option to have nice glass, but at the same time, upgraded body will definitely make it easier for you to get things right. People love 'the one you have with you' meme, but the truth is, modern camera will give you a better chance of getting things right in everyday amateur camera fun.

In your position, I think I'd upgrade body, but I wouldn't make it my highest priority. And if you'd conclude with "nah, i'd rather buy fancy glass for my 600d", I wouldn't judge at all, makes sense to me. For slower photography, it might not even matter at all.

All digital cameras are viable. And good news for you, EF mount lenses are dirt cheap now that everyone has moved to mirrorless. So take pictures, enjoy!

It's not bad at all, you could get 24MP canon, or better yet Sony/Fuji/Nikon which were a generation ahead for a while, but all that will get you less than a stop, and only be viable at higher iso, so duck it. I did not read the rest of the thread btw.
If you have literally any lens other than kit, don't move
If you do not, commit Sony a6x00 or Nikon D7x00

I will have to say as a shameless flipper, I am somewhat amazed at how cheap these canon dslrs can be had now. Zoomies don't care about them yet.

>>4299450
NTA but I love this photo, gives me strong I Spy vibes.
Wish I could re-create some of those photos, or more the style. There was something just so surreal about them I loved. It's the lighting and the cluttered scene with so much going on. You get "essence of (thing)" but the more you look at it the less realistically believable it becomes, the more arranged it looks, almost like a dream, and the lighting seems to amplify that.

Brb need to bother dad and take pictures of his hardware bins and toolboxes spread out in a visible but impractical and dreamlike way.

File: img165541_19062013114639_0[1].jpg (340 KB, 1907x1907)

340 KB JPG

Gonna hijack the thread.
Recently inherited a Canon 1100D/Rebel T3, ~10k shutter cycles with 4 lenses, the kit one, 75-300 1:4-5.6 and two primaries 40mm 1:2.8 STM and a 50mm 1:1.8 II.

I played around with it for a while, but it's capabilities felt lacking, especially in low light environments.

I was wondering should i replace the body for a R7 or R8, and which is better for a hobby photographer that's gonna use it primarily to shoot pictures when on vacations,

>>4303436
I have a R7 and it is my favorite camera I've had yet. I'm not sure it would be a very noticeable improvement over what you have, though. Going mirrorless, and doing electronic shutter can help with some minor shake in low light.
Anything specific you're interested in knowing about the R7?

>>4303438
I'm wondering is the full frame sensor of the R8 is worth the lack of features (IBIS and mechanical shutter)

>>4303449
Kek absolutely not. Canon only had one goal in mind with the RP and R8, "you will buy a better one later". Same reason they don't weather seal anything but L lenses.

>>4303438
EFCS has the same amount of low speed shake as ES (none)

>>4303449
For me, I need the weather / dusk sealing. I do not use the tripod often for my shooting, so the IBIS is welcome. The high MP count should be helped with clarity with IBIS on. I haven't actually ever turned off the IBIS, so I wouldn't know how much it truly helps.

File: noise.jpg (3.29 MB, 3513x2289)

3.29 MB JPG

>>4303454
The images seem really noisy, it could be my lack of competence tho

1600iso, f/2.8, 1/40 sec, 40mm, no flash

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:11 21:20:02
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3513
Image Height	2289

>>4303465
Try turning sharpening off by default. It can make noise much worse. You will always get some degree of noise like this at higher ISO.
If you have some automatic light leveling on, it might make it more pronounced as well.

File: IMG_20200720_225115.jpg (129 KB, 2027x1470)

129 KB JPG

>>4299761
>Smartphones can even be used for astro when used right.
lol true here's one I took holding my phone against a guard rail. it was like a 40s exposure or something

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4299862
Least delusional iToddler