Copy cat snappers

Why is it that when I'm spotted with my camera trying to take a picture of something people immediately come up and also take a picture in the same direction using their smartphones? They don't even know why or what I am looking at.

Is this mental Illness of not wanting to be left out?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>4295609
People see your big "professional" camera and immediately assume there is something really great to take a photo of. To combat this I will purposefully go to places with obvious photos like waterfalls or whatever do a 180 and start taking photos of nothing. It confuses and panics the phone normie

>>4295609
They go home to their husbands, wives, or support animals and say, "I saw some jerk taking a picture of this shit today"

>>4295609
Never had this happen to me, are you taking pictures of tourist attractions?

>>4295668
No, am always in the belief I'm alone in a spot, once someone is close to me they either ask what I'm taking pictures of or they look in the same direction and start taking pictures with their smartphone. I,m Walking around I'm with a 70-200 mm

cANON

>>4295609
>>4295676
Mentally illness anon, those people were never there.
>>4295667
Kek

Anonymous

>>4295676
This is why fujislugs hate larger cameras. Social interaction. “are you an artist? can i see your photos? they must be amazing. this is a beautiful view. you said you edit everything? whats your insta?”

Bring a 4x5 next time and if you’re at least a 6/10 you’ll pick up bitches even if you smell like dog hair (actually they might like that)

>>4295723
>fujislugs
I know we no longer have ID counts but you should to be a bit subtler when samefagging, cANON

cANON

>>4295730
I'm not the only guy who says "fujislugs", fujislug.

>>4295676
What sorta things do you take pictures of? Show us some of your work, I'm curious.

Anonymous

>>4295730
was wondering why i cant find the posters in thread count. thought i was going crazy. when did they change it?

>>4295609
I hate even being seen taking a photograph, which is why I end up waiting until the coast is clear.
Though this also means that my photos are typically empty.
One moment that makes me fucking seethe is two years ago when I saw a gorgeous red sunset in my shitty metropolis (while I was leaving another failed job interview in a part of the city I have no other business in), but two women were taking fucking forever to take a photo of it, then they noticed me. I tried to wait around for a moment, but after being spotted, I walked off and gave up the opportunity of a great photo. Obviously, this incident has stayed with me.
So I guess I was inadvertently copy-catting them, but I was really pissed off that their being there and taking too much time meant I could not take mine.

>>4297843
steel yourself by doing shitty waist level street photography for a couple months, or anything similar and you'll likely learn to overcome that "hate being seen" mindstate.

>>4295612
devlilish, i wish i wasn't too autistic to do this

>>4297843
>>4298596
Most americans are too neutered to do anything about you taking a photo
I was at the cherry blossom festival and there's a sick cherry blossom called "stumpy" that's about to be removed so they can repair the tidal basin seawall.
some dude who was literally wearing the loudest possible cycling shirt and bib shorts shows up and climbs over Stumpy's protective fence and walks about two feet from the tree
At first, I wanted to fight him, because he was standing in front of every single person's shot, and continued to do this for about five minutes, taking snapshits with his phone about a foot from the tree. I loudly said "loogat this fuckin' asshole"
then something completely changed in my head and I was like
>no. this is a gigachad move. this tree will be in a trashcan in three weeks anyway. I'm watching one of society's most hated categories of asshole completely ruin a bunch of peoples' gay iphone photos that they'll post to instagram, because he had the balls to ignore a gay orange construction fence and seize what he wanted.
so I shot four exposures on CS 400D of him molesting this tree while normies behind him seethe. I'm sure all of them will suck and be worthless because I suck as a photographer, but in that moment it just felt so fucking good to accept that any picture that I could take of that gay, sick tree would most likely be totally dwarfed by a perfect photo of this boomer gigachad carpe-ing the diem and pissing off hundreds of tourists.

Just go out with your camera on C(H) and rip off as many photos of strangers as you can. You won't care about what people think, but some people will love it, and you become so much better at detecting what differentiates a snapshit from kino

Why you this offended? If you trust in yourself and editing, your shot should still be different than others. <br>Getting your panties in a knot for no damn reason.

>>4295612
Based and devilish-pilled. I’ll do this the next time I’m out. I’ll report back of the shenanigans.

>>4295676
most of these "people" barely deserve to be called human. The right thing to do would be to incinerate them but since we live in a society all I can tell you is to ignore them like you would insects

>>4295609
its like all those chumps staring at things through their phone instead of enjoying life

>>4295609
Probably because youre a gwc photographing tourist attractions

>>4299037
awesome
post one of those pics please

>>4308109
we can read you loud and clear anon, over

>>4295723
4x5 hasn't gotten anyone laid in at least 40 years anon

>>4308276
Clearly you haven't heard of gay people

>>4295676
>>I,m Walking around I'm with a 70-200 mm
>take photo with phone
>crop in
My photo's composition looks just like the one you took and the resolution is just fine for social media.

>>4308614
Back in reality your photo looks like crispy ken rockwell shit and my photo is not on social media, its on my wall, because social media is for pathetic friendless narcissists who prefer the company of AI chatbots and IRL art is for real men who can take heat that hasnt been distilled down to robot operated like and dislike buttons.

>>4308702
No, no one has heard of those. Can you explain this in detail including where you came up with the idea and why it's on your mind despite being practically unheard of?

Sugar

>Be Sugar
>Paid wedding shoot 12 years ago
>Be in August in Florida on the beach
>Indoor/outdoor
>Gaggle of soccer moms with Rabals and kit lenses following me everywhere
>There's setting off my strobes with on-camera flash and getting in the way of me working
>Decide fuck this, hatch a devious plan
>Shooting with 5D and 60D at the time
>Leave the 60D outside
>Leave 5D inside
>Start going outside for pictures and grab 60d
>Soccer mom's cameras immediately fog up from 500% humidity
>Wait for them to acclimate to the heat
>Go back inside and shoot 5D
>Cameras immediately fog up again
>Rinse and repeat
>mfw

It was hilarious watching them use their shirts to try to wipe the condensation off and watch it immediately come back because therodynamics lol

Anonymous

>>4295612
I was taking a photo of a duck that was quite a ways out was at around 550 - 600mm and about four times people walked by trying to take a picture of the same duck wirh their phone next to me... was very awkward.

>>4308618
Not him but you would be better off posting a photo while talking all this shit if you really can "take heat".

>>4295612
>People see your big "professional" camera and immediately assume there is something really great to take a photo of.
>Have an R8 with a 50mm
>People still do this
How much smaller do I need to make my camera?

cANON

>>4309806
>How much smaller do I need to make my camera?
R10

Anonymous

>>4295609
Why do you care? People can have a fear of missing out, it's natural. Since you are the one with a clear composition in mind, you should not fret over this.

>>4295612
I did that once, passed by a famous touristic spot and started shooting in the other direction, capturing other people's reactions and general street.

>>4309806

Gotta use one of these bad boys.

[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

>>4295612
>Big professional camera
>Have Fujishit X-T200 with 35mm prime
>People queuing to copy my out-of-focus snapshits

>>4309806
>>4312110
If the lens comes off, people think you work for national geographic. I once was out at a wildlife preserve with my X-T3 and the 18-55, and this old couple approached me and insisted that I get a shot of the eagle's nest they saw across the river (probably 200-300 yards). When I told them that it was too far away, they looked at me like I was lying to them and said incredulously that they can see it with their binoculars.

People have no baseline for how cameras work.

>>4312136

Of course you could get the shot man, you have an APS-C sensor, so you pretty much have a 600mm lens lmao just crop it.

>>4312136
>Using 35mm
>"Can you zoom in on my watch"
>No
>"Yeah you can its right there"
>Points to focus ring

>>4312136
>>4312161
oh yip u can with the P1000

[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

Image Created	2023:10:23 21:33:36

White Point Chromaticity	0.3

Exposure Time	1/800 sec

F-Number	f/0.0

Lens Aperture	f/inf

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Focal Length	50.00 mm

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	6000

Image Height	4000

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Zach

>>4295609
Haven't seen them at all in my area and there is a shit ton of wonderful things to take images of.

Anonymous

>>4312290

Nobody wants to take photos what you're aiming at

>>4303931
sorry, i forgot about this thread

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI

Camera Model	EZ Controller

Camera Software	EZ Controller 8.00.011  (220309)

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Unknown

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 21:04:08

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	3089

Image Height	2048

>>4303931
>>4314431
also i was mistaken it wasnt CS400D, it was Lomo Metro

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI

Camera Model	EZ Controller

Camera Software	EZ Controller 8.00.011  (220309)

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Unknown

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 21:04:03

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	3089

Image Height	2048

>>4308276
I must have broken that streak than.

>>4295723
Extremely based. I will say that a wooden field camera is going to maximize your odds of this happening. A shiny brass lens would be a nice touch also.

>>4312290
>shit ton of wonderful things to take images of.
>takes photos of traffic cones


Why is it that when I film in higher resolutions, the colors become much different (better, more natural looking).

I have a sonya6400, and the 4k footage has tremendously bette colors than 1080p footage. And I now just got a new gopro, and I see the same pattern. 4k has much better (more natural) colors than 1080p, and 5,3k is even better than 4k.

I've also tried youtubing some resulotion comparison videos on the same camera (with the same settings), and it's the same. Higher quality nearly always produces better and more natural colors.

What the hell is going on? I would like to not be limited to the highest possible resolution, but I just cannot unsee how bad the colors look on 1080p.

>>4303613
it's the bit rate of the recording.

>>4303613
as the other posters said, better bit rate, better color space (4k 4:2:0 is the equivalent of 1080p 4:4:4), most if not all Sony APS-C 4K capable cams lineskip 1080p instead of downsampling. Here is a comparison between the a6400 and the RX100III which doesn't line skip.

So this is why on cameras that have only 1080p video, the video looks worse than stills from the same camera downsized to the same resolution?

It depends on how the camera records the 4k, bitrate, etc

Sometimes recording 4k with a 1.5x crop actually looks better because it downsamples instead of lineskips. There are a lot of quirks to be aware of, but thankfully, you only have one or two cameras so you can learn the ideal video settings for what you do in 5 minutes and just never touch them. For me it's 4k30p max quality in DX mode with auto ISO on. I just never touch that shit. Exposure mode goes to manual, 180 degree reule, I flick the video switch, I get nice movies SOOC.

>>4307631
Do you know if Nikon Z6ii line skips or downsamples?
How do you figure this out?

>>4308031
God has to reveal it to you in a dream

>>4308031
You ask a turbo gearfag. Usually panasonic micro four thirds users have these things memorized because pointless frame peeping video shit on full frames forms the basis of their self worth. Most of them will gladly write you an essay format shitpost about which FFs line skip or “dont even do DCI 4k”.

>>4308031
Z6ii probably line skips or at least is definitely not downsampled. Quick way to see is using DPReview's video comparison tool and looking at the Siemens star targets. Jagged lines/false color/moire are the giveaways.

Downsampling is a very electronically intensive process since you have to capture the whole sensor and then resize it down dozens of times per second. Upping the frame rate makes it even harder so skipping pixels was and often still is a common way to achieve that. Attached is a sample from the GH5 which downsamples and in its high frame rate mode so you have an idea of the difference. Also included is the A6400 which line skips but in high frame rate line skips even more.

Years ago, video resolution was just a spec sheet checkmark so they could plaster "FullHD" in marketing materials. The HD video from the older dSLRs (and the Sony's I mentioned in the earlier post) is a clownshow. It makes sense since companies were targeting photographers and if you wanted good quality HD, Canon wanted you buying the XC10 and not a Rebel. But a lot of buyers just going by the spec sheets would be disappointed. Panasonic usually avoided this in 1080p which is probably a reason why m43 had a strong following for years. Nowadays, downsampled 4K is common so use that if you can for 1080p.

Lots of factors involved in final quality. Bigger colorspace is better e.g. 4:4:4>4:2:2>4:2:0; higher bitrates are better; RAW > advanced codecs > primitive codecs; downsampling from 8K > 6K >5.3K > no downsampling > low to medium to high line skipping (for 4K output anyway. 2x resolution eliminates Bayer softening with more being introduced as you move down to no downsampling).

The crop factor falls under "no downsampling" and is worth thinking about since if you are losing sensor area a smaller format is worth looking at. E.g. the m43 LX10 cropped to smaller than the RX100 in video, EOS R cropped to near m43 size but with m43 you could get IBIS nothing else could touch.

Video quality is very meaningless, fyi, most people literally can not view 4k video as actual 4k, their display software will downsample or otherwise interpolate it. Unless you are shooting for a professional job it's literally just the color space changing. Remember these retards are zooming in on 2mp/8mp video frames. Which are usually motion blurred.

Holywood even tolerates rolling shutter dramatic enough for gunfire to illuminate only half the screen.

>>4308073
Wanted to add that some sensor crops also involve downsampling as >>4307796 pointed out. Personally, I don't like sensor cropping since you lose out on some of the benefits of the larger sensor.

Just to reiterate, unless you really need 1080, just use 4K since most modern cameras downsample from the full sensor in normal 4K modes these days (apart from a few super high resolution cameras).

But if you are like me and want 60p with full sensor readout, then options drop fast. A7SIII, R6 Mark II, and R8 and maybe some of the flagships for full frame. R8 has no IBIS though. APS-C has the X-H2S and A6700. m43rds has most of the GH series and the G9s. Oddly, the 1 inch cams don't do this outside of maybe some smartphones/action cams.

>>4308073
Interesting, I didn't even know DPR had video comparisons.
Thanks.

>>4308075
>Video quality is very meaningless, fyi, most people literally can not view 4k video as actual 4k, their display software will downsample
4k 422 becomes 1080p 444
visibly superior, worth it in every case

>>4308073
>Downsampling is a very electronically intensive process since you have to capture the whole sensor and then resize it down dozens of times per second. Upping the frame rate makes it even harder so skipping pixels was and often still is a common way to achieve that.
Yep. One reason I love 4k off my R6 is that it's oversampled even at 4k60.


What kind of camera do I need if I want to do sharp city photography. Does a FF sensor body not cut it anymore ? Or do I just some ultrasharp lens?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Photographer	AJ

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4308869
Large format film is your answer, especially if you plan on ahooting architecture.

>>4308869
Show us a city photo you took and we will be able to determine your best options in relation to your desired results.

You do take photos, right?

>>4308873
Of course. The ones I’ll be posting are from a crop sensor camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D5100

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 12.3 (Windows)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	796

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi

Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

Image Created	2024:04:26 14:25:36

Exposure Time	1/160 sec

F-Number	f/10.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	100

Lens Aperture	f/10.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	35.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Soft

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Sugar

>>4308872

This, but if you can't "swing" an LF camera a decent tilt-shift lens will work too.

Anonymous

>>4308876

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	788

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi

Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

Image Created	2020:09:28 19:14:12

Exposure Time	1/400 sec

F-Number	f/8.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	200

Lens Aperture	f/8.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	22.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308878

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Bridge 2020 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2023:04:29 20:22:54

Exposure Time	1/640 sec

F-Number	f/8.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/8.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	19.00 mm

Image Width	3264

Image Height	4928

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308879

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	776

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi

Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

Image Created	2020:08:06 17:50:06

Exposure Time	1/320 sec

F-Number	f/5.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	200

Lens Aperture	f/5.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	35.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308881
I have a 12-24 wide angle but often times the perspective distortion makes me not like how the photos turn out

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	776

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi

Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

Image Created	2018:07:14 16:08:57

Exposure Time	1/250 sec

F-Number	f/8.0

Exposure Program	Not Defined

ISO Speed Rating	125

Lens Aperture	f/8.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	12.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308884
Like this one, after trying ACR geometry correction the top end of the image is blurred

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.3.1 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	778

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2017:03:11 14:37:51

Exposure Time	1/320 sec

F-Number	f/7.1

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	200

Lens Aperture	f/7.1

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	12.00 mm

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308885

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	788

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	22 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi

Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

Image Created	2019:12:01 12:09:20

Exposure Time	1/1250 sec

F-Number	f/5.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	400

Lens Aperture	f/5.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	15.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308887

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D7000

Camera Software	Adobe Bridge 2020 (Windows)

Photographer	AJM

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2022:03:06 12:02:06

Exposure Time	1/400 sec

F-Number	f/11.0

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	400

Lens Aperture	f/11.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	19.00 mm

Image Width	4928

Image Height	3264

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308877
>>4308872
I figured the answer would be film. I’ve been using the same d7000 for 10 years, I was going to upgrade to FF but it seems like I better keep saving my money for LF? I only do this as a hobby, nobody cares about photos like these except me and maybe property or development owners who want to showcase their new works

>>4308893
A good large format camera is not necessarily expensive. If you have like 3 grand in total to buy a modern-ish FF and a good lens you have more than enough for an unbelievable 4x5 set up and possibly a couple hundred sheets of b&w film. Tmax100 4x5 is like 2-4 dollars per sheet, foma100 is like 1.25. Color sheets are more like 7 dollars per sheet, expensive, yes.

You want to use inexpensive b&w at first because there is a fairly steep learning curve to using a view camera, but you will be able to get phenomenal results once you figure everything out.

The other option is to either rent a tilt/shift lens+FF camera to see if it's enough, or get a view camera and a mounting back for your digital camera. It is sort of the best of both worlds, but the focal lengths available will be somewhat limiting for architectural work.
Rodenstock digaron lenses are insanely good, very expensive, and are designed for use with MF digital backs. They have very wide angle lenses you could use. 23 and 35 are the widest. They will not cover 4x5, but will have plenty of coverage for a FF sensor.

>>4308963
Thanks for the good advice. I was originally looking at the D810 for a FF which is around $700 right now, but getting a 4x5 maybe the answer to the gap, I can stick with my crop camera for everyday shooting and reserve the 4x5 for the architecture and possibly landscape.

Doing a quick search I see 4x5s range from $400 for the Intrepid to over $1k for others.
Do you have a recommendation in what to research or should I just look up 4x5 and architecture?

When it comes to development, I don’t have my own darkroom or dev equipment, I’m looking at $60 for a 25 pack plus $8 to develop BW each sheet ($200 a pack). Pretty steep

>>4308893
The answer isn't actually film. Perspective correction lenses exist for both EF and F mount, and Nikon is supposedly coming out with a mirrorless-only PC lens soon.

There are even PC lenses for 35mm cameras from the 70s and some chinkshit ones made today but they kind of suck and work best on APS-C because of the variable vignetting

You can totally do this on film, but it's not necessary and sheet film is retarded if you're not ready to do all of your processing at home. You also need a dedicated dark area just to dust off and load your sheets.

>>4308978
Dev stuff is cheap, and it is easy. A 4 reel patterson tank will do 6 sheets with a mod54 4x5 holder. B&H sells the combo for $86. Changing bag is 30ish, chems are like 60ish for probably 100 sheets, and misc stuff is another 50ish, maybe. You can use an 8 reel patterson if you need to 12 sheets. Home dev can bring your costs down to less than a couple dollars per 6 sheets. Everything except the chems is interchangeable with color dev. Just different chemistry.

If you don't mind weight and a little bit of extra cost I would suggest a sinar p1 or p2. It's an incredible monorail camera with fully geared movements, and the system is fully modular with many accessories. Any other monorail camera will be more than enough for architectural.

Field cameras with very wide angle lenses can be tricky because of how close the lens is to the film plane, so you need to be sure to account of that if you're choosing a field camera. Usually can't just swap out a wide angle bellows like on a monorail.

>>4308990
You only need a darkroom or extra large changing bag for 8x10. You can easily manage 4x5 with a small changing bag.

>>4309000
And if you’re willing to live with less than perfect negatives, you can economize and reuse chems even more. Just save the first use for stuff you really care about. Depends on how poorfag were willing to go here lol

>>4309060
so I’m looking at $1500+ up front costs for a camera, lens, darkroom dev kit,chemicals, and sheet film. That’s a big pill. I shoot pretty often digital but I’ve only shot film (35mm) 2-3 times a year.
Id have to go all in and make this the main focus of my hobby

>>4308889
I forgot about this one. Shot with ilford HP5. One of the few images that to me feels like one of those old time architecture shots

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Plustek

Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	3089

Image Height	2059

Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8

Compression Scheme	Uncompressed

Pixel Composition	RGB

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

Image Created	2024:04:30 16:16:20

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	1600

Image Height	1066

Upgrade to a D7200 for max dynamic range and most minimal change to shooting setup

>>4309076
That’s a fair point, right now I have a mix of crop and full lenses. I do like the 55-300 and will miss it if I move to FF

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Photographer	AJ

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4309062
Sinar kit for like 600 with a 90mm lens that includes a few sheet film holders.

200ish or less for all developing stuff

85 for a 50 pack of foma100.

Just gotta hunt on ebay. You can get really good deals on sinar kits.

>>4309062
https://www.ebay.com/itm/3753642842<wbr>90

The 90mm super angulon

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2047136634<wbr>47

>>4309095
>this lens is rated as POOR with fungus and a broken shutter lock

>this camera is near mint except for all the damaged parts

I won’t be getting these but it gives me an idie of what to look for. Are there any big problems I should avoid with a 4x5 camera?

>>4309101
Lol woops. Sorry, I just hastily found those 2. The main thing is that the bellows are light tight. Make sure the film holder/ground glass is there also.

With sinar it isn't too big of a deal because the bellows are easily interchangeable, but if you get a field camera it can be a big chore to replace them.

>>4309109
Bellows can be replaced. Been many years since I did but I recall suitable replacement bellows to glue in a wooden 4x5 field camera was (at the time) around $70 from chinkexpress.

So as im doing research im seeing three types of cameras: press, field, and monorail, with the last being the heaviest and least portable but more affordable. Realistically if I’m trying to do architecture or open space photos I’d want either a field or press camera right?

>>4308869
Solar/ND filter.
Heavy sturdy tripod with a weighted bag.
Motorized head for panoramas.
Shoot -6, -3, -, +3, +6 exposure bracket raws.
Use f11 or tighter.
Diffraction is a meme, don't worry about it.
Long exposure.

Pan (via the robotic head, not your hand) to get the shots you want.

Shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to properly photograph a scene. Might take longer to process.
You can use whatever camera you own but you'll need the tripod and other parts.
It's not your camera that's limiting.

>>4309279
Most field or press cameras should have enough movements (front rise is the one you mainly need) to bring your verticals parallel if you're shooting a building from ground level.

Although ultrawides (75mm and shorter lenses) can be tricky on these, a lens between 90 and 120 should be wide enough for most of your needs and will work on one of these.

Your cheapest version of one of these will probably be an old crown or speed graphic from ebay.

As for the lenses, because you will shoot at f16 or narrower apartures quite a lot of the time, I wouldn't get too hungup on the exact precision of shutter timings (I'm counting a few seconds on bulb mode more often than not) because black and white film is generally fairly forgiving of small exposure errors.

>>4309281
Something like this then? Should I look for one without a lens already so I can save the cost on the right focal length?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/2261181800<wbr>79?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-12763<wbr>2-2357-0&ssspo=v1nK49EVQwa&sssrc=44<wbr>29486&ssuid=kTZzj1llSQ6&var=&widget<wbr>_ver=artemis&media=COPY

>>4309281
>>4309307
Pretty sure tilting the back standard is used for perspective control, so make sure your camera has that.

Front tilt/shift is used to control the focal plane.

>>4309307
That one looks decent. The lens is approximately eqivalent to 35mm focal length on 35mm film camera.

You will also need at least one film holder, something like this https://www.ebay.com/itm/3753197034<wbr>95?itmmeta=01HWTXKG3FYEQRW21S3SXC9W<wbr>36&hash=item5762cc2fc7:g:kdsAAOSwwP<wbr>tl-Qk-&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA4AbebqR<wbr>dUnRjMFDFtwHSClZGob8pGN%2FZJ59f7nG3<wbr>ZviRxT8vuMtAi2edjxOdbhGyQoTjH21XmrQ<wbr>qhfHPP%2Fx1y6zyLGQ1WnnoxKzjDN%2Fk7l<wbr>Hpv7uohLHgjnriQBASiZoOPpx9PgA1UW8Ke<wbr>bAWa%2BXBhUReeuunme2%2BkcE4CJ7rP6FU<wbr>NaUUThB2sMZBueFdI2ChD1WOT8J8PJCvjbC<wbr>ovQoec2VA9NPTtVkWbRnasArMIFIMJ6L4tH<wbr>ghjImlxX74aZZesBaYFobrpLpFLhIGRqr0J<wbr>%2Ftuq9WybjCb2cZ5ZpnhE1JB%7Ctkp%3AB<wbr>k9SR-qBzt3mYw

>>4309380
Thanks for the reminder about the film holder, I’m also looking locally here, do any of these look promising?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Photographer	AJ

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4309453
The cambo monorails look nice, especially the ones with the wider angle lenses. If they'll let you fiddle around with the camera some you should do that so you can see how they feel.

What's your routine for photographing architecture? You can pack a monorail+tripod, but it will take a few minutes longer to set up and breakdown, and it will be a little heavier.

I would not recommend the graflex even if they are the cheapest. They don't have the full range of movements that a field camera or monorail has. It will most likely be limiting for architectural work.

>>4309457
The press cameras would be be no good for me but the pro is that it’s portable and I could adapt it to uses outside of strictly architecture

My current routine is that, I take my dslr and a tripod, remote shutter and ND filters depending on how light it is.

For this I will need a new tripod and head to support the weight, my locations will be parking-dependent so I’m not carrying this 6 blocks, and a lot of stability and patience

>>4309463
Field cameras, not press cameras. They both fold up, but field cameras have a lot more movement to them. Those crown graphics don't even have any back tilt/swing.

Thats a pretty good price for the deardorf and shen hao field cameras, but I know its probably out of your budget. Actually they are all pretty well priced, and you could probably sell them on ebay for how much you pay or even a little more if you decide a monorail is too cumbersome or whatever.

>I want to take sharp pics of cities
>buy an LF film camera
Any modern digital camera with a tripod and any decent wide angle will do, say a Sigma Art 24mm, or, if you can afford it, a decent tilt shift lens.
Shoot at base ISO and with pixel shift if possible, the rest is sharpening and coloring with dubious taste.

>>4309719
What makes an actually TS lens better than software geometry correction these days?

>>4309775
It actually changes what is in the frame according to natures laws instead of stretching and cropping the image to produce an unnatural, overcooked looking clusterfuck according to ken rockwell's eyes

I've seen software perspective correction and it always looks like uncanny shit unless it's a 1000x600 postage stamp, then it just looks uncanny

You develop an eye for it after using highly distorted mirrorless lenses because they essentially do the same thing. Too much distortion correction might not affect the MTF chart but you can tell some things are being stretched and squished.

What about a shift lens?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Photographer	Image search

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4309775
You don't lose any resolution by using a tilt-shift lens, while if you use software correction the part of the image that gets enlarged will be at a comparatively low resolution, and the fact that the image is stretched and resampled might cause artifacts.
Of course, the cost of a tilt-shift lens is in the diminishing returns realm, but it's an improvement.
>>4309782
If you don't have the money for a good TS lens it's not worth buying a lens specific for just one thing, better get a newer camera and short prime.

>>4309796
A half decent canon/nikon TS lens is a lot cheaper than shooting large format unless you intend to take barely any pictures.

Actually it might be cheaper period depending on the LF gear you buy. Some of those view cameras get pricey just for rigidity, standard locks, and good overall condition.

>>4309805
>a half decent TS lens
Your setup is already half decent, if you're going to invest money in it you might as well wait until you have enough money for a significant upgrade.
There also are cheaper and much more versatile options, like getting a better digital camera with a better lens, which you could use to improve any picture you might take and not just architecture with a tripod.
>shooting large format
That's definitely not worth it outside of a very few niches at very high levels and with very high budgets and I wouldn't suggest anyone on /p/ buy one, I meant NEW camera as in camera released in the last few years, a modern one.

>>4308893
>I figured the answer would be film. I’ve been using the same d7000 for 10 years, I was going to upgrade to FF but it seems like I better keep saving my money for LF?
Most likely not. You're getting knee jerk answers here.

LF potentially beats high resolution FF (45mp or higher) on two points.
- Resolution and max print size.
- Movements.

As for resolution: high resolution FF can make excellent 36" prints and good 60" prints, and that's before AI scaling algorithms. Do you need to print to larger sizes/higher quality than that? If not, then LF is not going to be better. In fact it can potentially be worse due to:
- Lack of film flatness.
- Poor lens IQ.
- Errors during development.
- Limited scanning capability.
And to that last point: high rez FF is going to beat 4x5 scanned on a flatbed. If your budget is flatbed, LF is not going to benefit you.

As for movements: you can't beat 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for movements. But you can get close. Canon EF, for example, has native T/S lenses and 3rd party T/S lenses, and RF adds T/S adapters for MF lenses. On top of that PS has tools which are excellent at correcting perspective distortion. This digs into your resolution a bit, but unless you're printing huge it won't matter.

tl;dr - you will almost certainly be more productive with FF and T/S lenses or adapters + PS tools than you will with 4x5. And while 4x5 has an edge at the very limits of performance, you have to ask yourself if you will ever exploit and see it.

Now if you just want to play with/experience film, that's a different question. 4x5 is fun.

>>4308876
No amount of lens sharpness will help with atmospheric haze. Some filters may help but otherwise you can only kinda compensate with dehaze.

>>4309062
More than that, because irl when I sell images, no one wants a fucking print, they want a high res image file, and that shit has to be perfect. So if you’re going to fuck around with film to make pretty art prints that’s great but if you’re going to sell your images to architects and cities you’re wasting your time, because they are only interested in the file. For them you get at least a 45 megapixel body stick a tilt shift lens on it and then get very good in Photoshop because most of your work is going to be in the computer, producing a professional image. Never mind the camera, you can pick up a used Nik, Cannon or Sony that will do the capture just fine. what you’re going to need most is a proper display & calibration for color work, which is a few thousand.

The lens is more important in your case. Get a quality wide lens. Such as the RF15-35, RF 14-35 or any brand equivalent with any camera that's not too old and you're good to go

>>4308869
i think id rather shoot ff + stitch photos than go through the hassle of 4x5
you should try that first op

>>4308869
Large format + black and white film achieved this level of sharpness.

So many lenses these days are plenty sharp though. Just use a tripod, look up which f stop resolves the sharpest for your lens (consider focus depth as well depending on your composition) and do that.

>>4310690
This thread is still up? I wanted to clarify:
>high resolution FF can make excellent 36" prints and good 60" prints, and that's before AI scaling algorithms.
This is to say that at 36" you're not going to see a sharpness/resolution difference between high resolution FF and 4x5 film properly scanned. At 60" you will see a difference side by side, but FF will still be sharp/acceptable.

>>4313768
>>4313709
Thank you anons. Seems like the short answer is LF, or the long solution is to find really good glass for FF.

I know these are considered sterile clinical looking photos but I've always loved how much detaily you can see in these photos, even down the names in the glass windows.

Shorpy says this is an 8x10 inch dry plate glass negative, so i guess that explains the clarity

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Sinar

Camera Model	54H

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows

Photographer	Shorpy.com

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	8148

Image Height	10263

Compression Scheme	Uncompressed

Pixel Composition	Unknown

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	980 dpi

Vertical Resolution	980 dpi

Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

Image Created	2010:09:07 23:13:14

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2400

Image Height	3024

>>4314442
the shutter on that one doesnt seem to be too long, only the moving feet are blurred, but this one is much longer

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Sinar

Camera Model	54H

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.3 (Windows)

Photographer	Shorpy.com

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:01:24 12:52:38

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2100

Image Height	2606

>>4314444
checked & blessed quads

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi

Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4314442
I love old shots like this, but I would argue that's not as sharp/detailed as modern high rez FF. (It's 8x10 but so many factors are at play, particularly limitations on lenses at the time, and limitations on the film emulsions). I once went through the 4x5 WWII photos at Shorpy and they are amazing for the history, and technically very good, but high rez FF out performs them on the technical quality. (Again: lenses, emulsions, 1940s. By then 8x10 was better than today's high rez FF.)

But, admittedly movements are a non-issue with LF. It's doable on FF but you've got to put the pieces together.

>>4314535
Tonality still isn't as good on digital sensors.

>>4314535
Do you have a link to any gallery with photos like this from FF cameras

BurtGummer

You should try a Laowa 15mm Shift lens. Works on your camera, cheaper than a full Tilt/Shift, and they're built so solid that I bet a second-hand one would still be fine.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Anonymous

>>4314537
Yes it is. In fact, you have to jump to LF with modern emulsions to distinguish as many tones/colors as modern FF. Not to be confused with palette or "look". Films can have very unique looks. But tonality is the ability to distinguish separate tones/colors, and the best FF sensors are incredible in this respect.

>>4314539
No because they didn't have digital cameras back then.

>>4314575
>as modern FF
...as modern FF digital.

>>4314575
That's what i meant, and what I'm talking about. 4x5 and up, especially when contact printed.

>>4314575
>but high rez FF out performs them on the technical quality

Thats what Im asking, for photos like that taken with modern FF digital cameras so I can see the quality/detail. images like this >>4314547
for example

>>4314582
You need to buy an 8x10 or larger contact print and look at it in person if you truly want to understand the difference.

I bet you could find a nice piece to hang on the wall for pretty cheap on ebay.

>>4314580
>That's what i meant, and what I'm talking about. 4x5 and up, especially when contact printed.
That can be a valid argument for going that direction. I would say that you can learn to post process your digital files to look like old time B&W and Kodachrome. (Kodachrome would actually be harder.) But in the case of B&W, an easy path to getting that look is to simply do what they did. Use an emulsion close to what they had (if available, LF film choices are getting thin). Develop like they did. Print like they did. At the very least that would be a lot of fun and you should end up with a very similar result.

>>4314582
>Thats what Im asking, for photos like that taken with modern FF digital cameras so I can see the quality/detail. images like this >>4314547
>for example
Sorry, I shouldn't have been so curt. I would search Flickr. Search on the T/S lenses you're interested in, B&W. Also search on descriptive phrases like "B&W city architecture FF digital." You're bound to run into a style that's close enough at least to compare.

When I went through the WWII 4x5's many were portraits and I was comparing to my own shots on a 5Ds. And, again, those 4x5's are gorgeous, and Kodachrome's palette can be difficult to emulate. They represent an era. So artistically I'm not comparing anything I've done to them. But technically, resolution/sharpness/tonality, 5Ds RAWs edges them out. That surprised me at the time, but makes sense given the time period. A 4x5 can certainly edge out even an A7R V today. You have to print very large to see it, but it can.

If I seem like I'm pushing digital it's only because the cost/workflow advantages are so huge. And it's not like the early 2000's when LF would blow a 6mp DSLR out of the water. If you know what you're getting into with LF in terms of cost and time, and want to experience it, want to try and make photographs the way they did, then go LF.


grip gear

what's your favorite piece of grip equipment, anon?

>>4313484
thats consumables not grip retard

>>4313483
I think my DSLR has a pretty good grip

>>4313524
my dslr grip is starting to peel off, will probably have to reglue eventually somewhere down the line

>>4313524
>>4313533
dear lord it's true photographers are unbelievably brain dead

GRIP E Q U I P M E N T

l-brackets are basically a requirement for tiny mirrorless cameras if you have slightly larger hands. the stock grips are puny on basically everything except a z9, z8, and r3

>>4313555
>mogs you while providing longer battery life and burst rates

Helps with telelphoto lenses, comfy otherwise

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Apple

Camera Model	iPhone SE (3rd generation)

Camera Software	17.4.1

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2024:05:14 00:03:09

Exposure Time	1/40 sec

F-Number	f/1.8

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	250

Lens Aperture	f/1.8

Brightness	1.4 EV

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Spot

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	3.99 mm

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	2016

Image Height	1512

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

C stand. Cinesaddle. Tripod. Kirk plates with the QD port. Flags. Black v flat.

>>4313561
>He needs a second battery to get acceptable battery life and the max burst rate
Oh boy

cANON

>>4313609
>>4313610
Not really, high-speed sensors need full voltage to operate at their maximum output.
It's enough of an issue that Canon was proposing the installation of a capacitor on the sensor assembly just to feed it.

Anonymous

>>4313614
Cope. A1 can do more frames per second at a higher resolution and doesn't need a second battery

>>4313628
And everyone else is an unpaid assistant who helped a boomer shoot an ad

>>4313614
Explain why the A1 doesn't cripple itself if you dont use a battery grip
Explain why sony doesnt need a battery grip model AT ALL because the optional BG lasts longer than an R3 or Z9
Ah yes, I know why

SONY CAMERAS ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR.
SONY LENSES ARE SUPERIOR.
OTHER CAMERA MANUFACTURERS ARE PRODUCING INFERIOR CRAP AND CANON WOULD BE THE #2 OR #3 BRAND, WITH NIKON AS #4 OR #5 (BELOW FUJI) BECAUSE THEIR OVERSIZED SHIT SUCKS - NIGGOR 50MM F1.8 IS THE SIZE OF A SONY 50MM F1.4 GM LMFAO

>inb4 muh color science
You dont become the top brand because your colors are bad. Maybe you should stop processing your raws in non industry standard software like lightroom and switch to capture one studio.
>inb4 muh baby mount
The canon RF 50mm f1.2 vignettes more than sony's 50mm f1.2 GM, despite being larger.
>inb4 muh star eater
Every single major brand has been discovered using forced LENR in raws - including Nikon. A7RV does not eat stars. Anyways, can you tell us more about why canon forces shadow NR in raws for low ISOs on the R6, R8, and R5, and why they force it at every ISO on the R3?

If you're not shooting sony you might as well buy a lumix G9II

>>4313653
The only reason canikon have market share at all is legacy crap. Probably 80% of canon's market is boomers who financially have to stick with canon because of their $10k worth of EF lenses. Not because their cameras are good.

Sony's cameras and lenses are good. Sony actually has a lens selection that meets everyones needs instead of being a hard split between oversized bokeh whore crap and entry level junk without weather sealing (or whatever the fuck nikon is doing with super soft wide open consoomer grade entry level primes that are the size of sony GM lenses)
Seriously nikon Z lenses are a fucking embarassment. 20mm Z - softer than sony's, 2x the size. 24mm Z - softer and slower than sony's, larger. 35mm Z - softer and slower than sonys GM, same size. 50mm Z - softer and slower, same size. 85mm Z - only lens that is actually better than sony's.

Oh and on sony you can actually get compact primes that aren't non-WR plastic shit or jokes with noisy slow AF. Who cares if the 26mm f2.8 is thin, once you add the hood and filter to "weather seal" it its the same size as the sony 24mm f2.8 G kek

Why do you think canon is so deathly afraid of third party AF lenses on RF mount? They're not allowing that until they estimate that enough EF gear has been traded in for RF gear.
Why do you think there are no FF sigma lenses for nikon Z? Nikon is dying fast enough as it is, they wont allow sigma to do that.

Just look at what happened to nikon. the one and only reason they plummeted to a nearly bottom tier brand is because they incorrectly assumed no one was using AF-D lenses. So when they decided not to support them, they lost half their customers to sony.

>>4313483
Nobody uses this crap now that cameras go over ISO 400, shoot outside and you have all the lighting you'll ever need. Almost nobody studiofags unless they are working under a larger corporate umbrella or are an early lifer. Realestate has gotten too expensive and most clients think flash looks bad.

>>4313654
>clients think flash looks bad
CMOS killed pretentious photography. As soon as anyone could shoot in any light and get a clean image only advertisers were shooting with flash. Now artificial lighting is just “the ad look” and fashion photographers have gotten even more pretentious to cope

>>4313654
Nikon is incompetent and out of touch

Those 1.8 primes are inexcusably bad values except for the 50 and 85. Pentax FF digital tier.

cANON

>>4313654
>Why do you think canon is so deathly afraid of third party AF lenses on RF mount?
Sigma caters to the lower market segments and Canon doesn't to allow Sigma's lenses to be sold until they have produced a similar product.
If Sigma's offering did arrive first, many of the budget users wouldn't purchase or trade in for the Canon equivalent even if it was better.

Anonymous

>>4313654
You just outed yourself for having never been near an editorial or commercial shoot, ever.

>>4313682
>confirms that flash is only for wankers shooting ads for jc penny
Least worthwhile form of photography. Subwedding gear wank.

Conflict journalism and landscapes is all that’s ever been good.

>>4313706
>worships subwedding gear wank because they use the most gear

>>4313718
You’ve really settled into your crab bucket.

>>4313654
We all see you want to justify your purchase and I'm sure Sony would be happy with your commitment, however many of us at /p/ will continue to enjoy shooting Canikon rather than Snoy baby mounts with forcibly ill cooked raws with fried chicken GMs that are too seasoned and washed in a sink. Enjoy having more userbase, just like how Playstation is #1 ensures it must be the best game experience that is universally enjoyed.

I love this little nigger like you wouldn't believe


Lumix S5 for video

Seeing these cameras go for about £600 on eBay used at the moment. I only just bought one a few years ago for about double the price used, what gives? I know the S5ii and iix have much better autofocus for video but honestly if you want to get into filmmaking, this camera is an absolute bargain now for what it can do.

The built in H265 with vlog is fantastic. L Mount means you can adapt a shit ton of vintage glass to it and it can be easily rigged out into a cinema camera if needed. Think I might snag myself another one soon to use as a B cam for documentary and gig work.

I'm getting one with the Sigma 2.8 zooms. You can get the same setup in Sony and it's more expensive.

>>4309250
yeah the S5 is legit. Let people gear chase and follow trends.

>>4310871
The S5 is like, "the camera" for "gear chasers"
Its literally a trendy camera only to youtube watching gearfags because all of the gearfags on youtube are having constant circlejerks and jizzing their pants over
>THE CODECS BRO, THE CODECS
>MY OTHERWISE SHITTY MACBOOK CAN EDIT IT FASTER (NO BENEFIT OUTSIDE OF MACBOOKS)
>THE VIDEO MODES
>OH MY GOD THE 4K IS DCI
Meanwhile the autofocus is trash and panusonics lifeless, neutral colors always NEED "grading" so the level of effort you have to put in (manual focus only, always shoot raw/log) is ridiculous... all for "codecs" that have really have no appreciable benefit unless you are trying to use editing to shoot midday as sunset or salvage ridiculously wrong white balance decisions. And it's not like more common, cheaper cameras that take more common, cheaper lenses can't handle retarded "i need the 422" situations like those.

And then there's frame peepers. Pixel peepers I can understand. A photo is not going anywhere and they've been too detailed for one glance since, uh, the beginning of photography, but movie stills? Who pauses and zooms in, besides conspiracy theorists who think they see aliens? Panusonic users.
>watches the same clip 100 times
>pauses
>THERE
>zooms way in on a wrinkle in a shirt
>See that spot? HE DIDNT SHOOT THIS IN ALL-I! Probably because his shitty camera couldn't! -panusonic user, ignoring that the video is always in focus and the colors came out good with no editing

>>4310873
actually this is basically anyone who wants to use FF for video

>>4310873
>lifeless, neutral colors always NEED "grading"
so... a raw file?

>>4310906
No? Raw files do not contain colors. The input profile for the raw does. Raw files do produce different data from the same colors compared to raw files from different cameras, but there's no actual color in them. They're monochrome grids. A program running an algorithm uses an input profile to guestimate color from the monochrome grid.
Most editors have a totally flat profile to start from plus a editor specific interpretation and a few camera matching profiles that replicate SOOC jpegs. Capture one, for example, is known for their very good input profiles that are like camera matching+.

Maybe you meant "so... a log gamma?". Maybe, but panusonic color science in sooc video is dull enough that you might as well shoot in log.

>>4309250
>Full frame
>Video
Why do people keep doing this to themselves

>>4310873
Did your brain get fried by fiddling too much using your film simulation dial on a Fuji so that you can only enjoy oversaturated colors?
If you really believe a cheapo S5 is for gear chasers, do you also believe that. the GH5 and before that the Canon EOS 5D MKII were for gear chasers?
Those cameras are just beginner-priced modes of entry that offer a lot of flexibility vs. other cameras. A gear chaser would opt for something like the Sony ZV-E1, which offers a whole lot of compromise, awful colour science and a few gimmicks for 2500 bucks upwards.


Why do you hate him?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4312332
he reminds /p/hotocucks who still believe photography is le art and that one day they're gonna make it big with photos the world will surely admire and care about that photography is just another business that's also getting only harder to keep yourself attached to with every passing month

>>4312332
I don't hate him, I hate you for purile shitposting

>>4312349
Work on your run-on sentences.

>>4312365
*works*
next time I'll CRUSH you even harder

Go away Jared I'm not watching your latest vid

>>4312332
He’s the archetypical photographer the world doesnt need. First in line to be replaced by a drone with a snoy. And yet he thinks he has all the right opinions

Just so you know, any photographer with a clue about gear stopped caring before they even got a career. Listening to this guy is like listening to a taxi driver about racecars when you can ask an f1 champ wuts gud and get
>doesnt matter learn to drive

>>4312349
Weird, I watch his videos and I get the impression that’s the opposite, that he knows he’s a gearfag and shill and embraces it and he doesn’t seem to get too wrapped up in the bullshit mysticism of “le photograph” that other Jewtubers seem to. But I don’t know YouTube is kind of just on in the background for me.

>>4312400
yeah basically this

jared polin is a taxi driver talking about sportscars
he talks like he knows everything but the only laptime he ever posted was 20 minutes around the nurburgring, counting the crash and the crying session, and one time he almost spun out and went over a cliff while attempting a "togue attack"

the extent of his photographic knowledge is setting up back button AF, bitching about autofocus and comfort when using 1200mm zooms, and applying lightroom presets. he cant even frame a shot or use appropriate exposure settings. he shoots with his shutter speed 2 to 3 stops higher than it needs to be, cranks the ISO, and misses the shot entirely anyways and has to crop it to save it. some people shoot for a crop and that's ok but he cant even center a subject sometimes.

>>4312408
>he knows he’s a gearfag and shill and embraces it and he doesn’t seem to get too wrapped up in the bullshit mysticism of “le photograph”
that's exactly what I meant and that's exactly why he's hated on /p/ by some
sorry if it wasn't clear, working on my run-on sentences rn

>>4312332
All RAW elitists should be shot. Simple as.

>>4312567
Film cameras only shot raw. Negatives have more editing latitude than some cameras raws, actually.

Jpeg is a degeneration. Like being stuck with one film stock, lab, and scanner with your camera and having to buy a new one to make a significant change.

>>4312571
mostly thats because all cameras not named leica have really bad jpeg engines

yes even nikon and fuji. x100vi jpegs look worse than an iphone. Z8 jpegs are just shit.

>>4312332
Becuase he is into promoting himself and being famous more than being a good photographer.
>hence the annoying spastic videos made for zoomers
>hence the ridiculous hair

I only shoot film, have never owned a digital camera.

>wtf is raw?

I know it’s some format but why is it supposed to be so good?

>>4312332
Pros:
-Happy to talk about negatives of any brand
-Real-world reviews actually give a good idea of how cameras and lenses perform in appropriate use-cases

Cons:
-Terrible personality. Very American
-Claims to be in the gym every day but has arms like a 17 year old who's been training for a month
-Photos are ok but if he wasn't reviewing gear, he wouldn't have a channel based around is skills are a photographer.
-Editing skills are heavy-handed and pretty awful
-Presets also look awful. What he calls 'Skittles', I call oversaturated garbage.

>>4312608
Not sure if you're serious, but if you've really only shot film, you may be.
Raw is essentially the entirity of the information the sensor has captured without any noise reduction, sharpening, contrast or saturation added.
It's basically your film negative, ready for you to process however you want to.

JPG or whatever other HEICs (high efficiency image codecs) are out now just apply all those settings for you and save the file in a compressed format with less specific colour information per pixel. Very limiting if you want to make any changes to it after taking it.

>>4312612
>without any noise reduction, sharpening, contrast or saturation added.
In an honest world.

>>4312612
Why would the raw style image not have been the default from the get go? Digital seems overly confusing and processed to me.

>>4312777
i bet a lot of things seem overly confusing to you.

>>4312777
raw is the actual exposure / source file, like a negative
jpg is some interpretation of that raw, like a print or scan

cANON

>>4312777
It was, but most people/companies realized the benefit of digital was convenience.

Anonymous

>>4312777
Because storage used to be expensive and most computers were too slow to edit raws. That’s it. Only an idiot would waste their time shooting jpeg. Its lower than accepting lab scans - the lab still does exposure and color balance corrections for you.

He had a very good video about how to use my camera model specifically and what all the different settings and options did that was better than the manual. I tried watching one of his other videos and he just comes off as a guy that has to suck himself off and present himself as someone that gets constantly sucked off to win clients. Idk. He's a product of what sells in the industry.

I'll tell you why I'm indifferent to him
.
But I need to tell you about my shitty LUT presets.

When the RF 100-500 came out, his review complained for over a full minute about how the zoom would slide out from gravity, and said Canon should have made it tighter. That lens has a ring to make the zoom do exactly that to user preference. He couldn't even bother to look at the lens he was reviewing.

He's not worth your time getting angry over. Move on with your life.

>>4312332
Like every member of his group, he avoids work and prefers to profit off the backs of others. He is a liar and phony, unable to create anything meaningful or beautiful on his own he turns to the skills and achievements of others off which he becomes a parasite.

The group I am, of course, referring to professional photographers.

>>4312332
He’s too old to still be acting like a retarded 20-something putz. Then again perhaps he knows his audience and its all performative for them to relate to. jfc

>>4312573
>um guize i like throwing all my color & detail out and keeping a jpeg.
>some cameras do rly gud jpegs
No they sure the fuck don’t, thats not how jpeg works at all. Ken Rockwell go crawl in a hole and die i swear to monkey fuck.

>>4312623
Not really. The raw or .dng (digital negative) file just contains the data off the sensor. But the sensors data, just like a film negative, is not an accurate finished image that perfectly resembles the orig scene, it still requires developing to get it to that point, and along the way the image-maker must make all the choices of how they want the final image to look. Without going into technical specifics, trying to view an undeveloped film or digital neg is silly, bc they were engineered to be raw materials ready for more processing, not for your eyeballs to read as photographic truth. There is no such thing.

>>4313257
shooting jpgs is for people for whom having a camera is about lifestyle branding, not photography. Shooting jpgs means their intent is to never print. Their photos go directly from the sd card to their instagram. They would be happy to use their phone, but a camera says they are 'artistic' and 'mindful', they truly appreciate a moment and have a vision. They describe themselves as a "creative".

Shooting jpgs is to photography the equivalent of what being the guy who shows up at parties with a guitar is to music

>>4313259
>doesn't understand the post he's responding too
>doesn't actually know what he's talking about
>still thinks he's an expert
classic /p/ post, welcome aboard newfriend

>>4313259
>Without going into technical specifics,
Nope. U didnt post everything there is to know about the subject in one post, therefore u no nuthing. u r so stoopid, i smart, not u. durr hurr hurrr heeeeeehawwwww

brand over substance, feeds the gear machine that youtube photographers fall into, doesn't really add anything useful, ie he captures rather than creates value, his paid reviews of peoples work are often simplistic and he fails to grasp intent in shots and only sees what he would have been looking for. Gets wrapped up in old projects or photos he took that genuinely arent that impressive, and stumbles into specialised fields when reviewing and misses key info or techniques. Oh and his recent film posts on insta have been fucking horrific. Several of the baseball clubs in MLB have people doing what he's doing but better and more often, without the wanking, cause its just sports marketing at the end of the day

>>4312612
raw files should be obsolete at this point. HEIF has a lossless profile that could compress all the data with zero modification.

>>4313260
You're right.
Shooting jpegs is fun, and devoid of any friction.
Just shoot and enjoy.
I love my fuji for that.

>>4313279
Nope, HEIF contains an order of magnitude less data. This totally fucks you if you are an actual photographer who does retouching and dodge and burn. I know the fujislug/digislug cope these days is you shouldn't but if you believe in photographic reality you are a clown. Photographs have never been reality from the moment of exposure. And if you are a "camera operator" winogrand style purist who only cares about location and timing - you aren't an artist, you have no soul. You are a ceepy voyeuristic goblin or go back to square one - snapshitter who might as well use a phome.

Anything short of 14 bit raw is unironically worse than film
And I'd prefer 16 bit raw and medium format digital or 45/61mp FF because a thorough scan of quality stock like portra 160 is still dangerously close to a 14 bit 36mp FF RAW, and sometimes it exceeds it if the fine detail happens to be one of the many general patterns bayer and xtrans can not cope with.
>inb4 digicope about color gamuts and scanning film properly being too hard/"enlargers cant resolve le fine detail" (false, get a job and buy a good one)
yes, CFAs have a wider color gamut than film layers, but this does not actually matter unless you are using medium format digital+pixel shift to scan real art ie paintings and historical frescoes

Ι don't hate him, he is the realest one out there.<br>Photography is a dying art and too many promote themselves as photographers simply for owning an iphone.

>>4312609
>Claims to be in the gym every day but has arms like a 17 year old who's been training for a month
not everyone wants to bulk up though
he's not fat
maybe he goes to do cardio and basic maintenance to not get fat
all he has to do is hold cameras and lenses up he isn't a construction worker hauling heavy loads so idk what you expect

>-Editing skills are heavy-handed and pretty awful
>-Presets also look awful. What he calls 'Skittles', I call oversaturated garbage.
kek
I want to buy lightroom and his presets and apply skittles to skittles then get a refund when they no longer look like skittles
but I don't use adobe software so it's too much work
also LR is rental only so fuck that

>>4313333
Checked, photography will be relict of past.
Something like medieval swordfighting or smithing, only autist will remain.
Soon AI will be good enough to stitch multi-exposure photo from multiple smartphone sensor, with perfect imitation bokeh and all the shit you will want.
Will it be truest representation of realiy? ofc no, but most people won't care so it will win in long run.
Maybe small larp single lens cameras like fuji x100 will remain, for zoomies to have fun.
But photography is done for.

>>4313370
"Photography is done for, this consoomer shit is good enuff" has been repeated countless times for the past 20 fucking years but it's never actually been done for
Because it's never actually been good enough except for the normie-minus class that is incapable of being discerning. Their brains function at a lower level and basically filter the additional info out - if your theory of mind can't comprehend this, imagine a jar of beans. Highly intelligent people will make a more accurate guess regarding the number of beans in the jar. A worker-breeder class man who thinks a phone is good enough or even the same as a camera has a stronger filter in their mind so the jar of beans is a single unit.

What actually died was standalone normie visual-notetakers and you normies and sub-midwits have been lamenting it every day every year and calling that shit "photography", but "autists" are a larger percentage of the population than you think. Because when you say "autist", you mean people 1SD+ ahead of the avg IQ. These are the cultural ubermensch. The people with discerning taste. The people whose brains are running smoothly and quickly enough to notice the little things and conceive of abstract aesthetic values.

These people are never going away, so "real photogaphy" isn't either. We CAN'T go away - at least not without everyone suffering greatly. Society depends on the midwits+ class to run basic services like education, healthcare, the justice system, government, advanced manufacturing, etc. Society depends on the midwits+ class to progress. It encompasses the genius class, but also people you probably never thought of - the hordes of undergrads, techs, and assistants that help make genius ideas into practical reality.

Also, high end cameras are a glorified offshoot of industrial and medical imaging so the R&D is always going to be there as long as we have a decent civilization.

inb4 normie minuses post jealous hatred and mockery directed at the midwit pluses

REVERSION TO THE MEAN REVERSION TO THE MEAN REVERSION.png

>>4313374
"midwit pluses" get so neurotic and insecure about not being geniuses that if anyone is mocking them it's the burnouts among them being perpetually salty about not being first place

>>4313370
You do realize medieval swordfighting is an olympic sport for rich sons and daughters of PhDs now correct?

Photography has a lower barrier of entry than that. Its a 105+ IQ thing. You’re not into high IQ photography until you have 5+ strobe studio work.

>>4313374
>We CAN'T go away - at least not without everyone suffering greatly
Who is John Galt?

Zach

>>4312332
His personality is a little bit obnoxious. I like the old version of him who was a little bit more humble and quiet. He makes good video though. I watched two of his camera guides with Todd Wolfe.

Anonymous

Reminder to doomsayers: Dip nibs, quills, reeds, fountain pens, bottled ink, papyrus, and vellum are still produced on an industrial scale.

>>4313402
>builds short lived overpriced “cars” with remote killswitches and explosive power cells that can be triggered using the cars own systems
>markets them to the collectivist liberal elite
>provides internet service to russian troops, as a joke
jej

>>4312332
I've only seen one video of his, I don't like his attitude.

>>4313358
>not everyone wants to bulk up though
>he's not fat
He's not fat but he flexes and talks about his 'guns' pretty regularly.

I've never touched lightroom but I do everything in Adobe Camera Raw. My work pays my Adobe subscription though. I woul;dn't pay it.

As much as I hate him, at least he's genuine in his shittyness.
This guy on the other hand, doesn't have a single genuine bone in his body.
And it got so much worse when he hopped on the film trend (at least 5 years too late, mind you) and went on to hail himself as the film photography messiah after speed running the hobby right into a Leica M6.
Absolute scumbag that I wish nothing but the worst on.

>>4313976
His recent videos clearly show how done he is with photography. He's bored, doesn't really care anymore and wants to escape this niche so bad. Understandable.

>>4313976
To this day I have no idea why peter is so popular. He's an average youtuber and while his photos are great I just don't know why people worship him. Is it because of his faux deepness?

>>4314398
What the actual fuck is the purpose of this
stitching for MAXIMUM resolution?

>>4314455
it's necessary to take a picture of just ONE of my balls

>>4314579
Impressive
Do you have an OF so we can see


Macro lenses

I just found out these can be really useful for more than just macro, which I found out that are great for getting a 1:1 ratio on your subject.

What I didn't know is something like a 105mm/2.8 also makes an outstanding portrait lens along with even an all-around good prime lens. Also typically it'll be cheaper than a similar fast lens.

Is this really the best type of lens for all pictures until you need some kind of zoom?

Effectively all macro means is that the lens can focus closer. It's just a normal lens other than that

>>4309483
Thanks. I figured that out way longer than I should have.

>>4309479
The tradeoff is that they are bigger heavier and more expensive and not as fast as a non-macro. You can usually find 70-200 zooms that are just as fast as ~100mm macros. They're good lenses but some find them a bit clinical for portraits in particular. I like using mine as a general purpose lens though, and 2.8 is fast enough for me most of the time. That said 1:1 is incredibly close and niche, if you don't do macro I'd just get a fast prime.

>>4309489
I currently use a 24-120/4 lens for macro and I only get maybe 40% of my subject so yeah I would use it as a macro lens. I love going for hikes and taking pictures of little bugs and critters, mushrooms etc. very interesting things and much easier and cheaper to shoot than birds. Someday I’ll have to save up for something zoomy and lightweight like the 400/4.5 from Nikon.

>>4309489
Often. The 100/2.8 screwdrive tokina is relatively small, light and cheap and has the great AF/MF focus clutch.

>>4309483
Autofocus is way slower and hunting can be brutal. Notice the limiter switch has no third position for 0.5m+.

It was nice of them to include the control ring that belonged on the 20/24/35/50/85 set I guess? It's kind of stupid that only some lenses have that - meanwhile the focus rings on the lenses without it are overly large. It should be standard. I set it to ISO in stills instead of using nikon's ever-clunky auto ISO/min SS setting system, and then I grab a lens that doesn't use it and i go to turn an ISO ring that isn't there. Once you get used to the ring half the Z lineup seems crippled.

Also it's nice for aperture pulls doing boomer home movies without giving up instant MF. Nikon Z will not really be a complete system until they revise the ergonomics of control-ringless lenses (and 40/28 weather sealing), release premium 2.8 primes again, and release a 70-200 f4 like lense (but different, if they could pack 70-300 f4 into an internally zooming VR lens with 1:2 macro it would be boss)

>>4309479
most macro lenses actually lose stops of light as they focus closer, starting at pedestrian distances such as 1:5 reproduction ratios, because of the unique design principles. at mfd this is a t4.5 lense.

the Z cameras auto-correct the AE for it, but you are getting less light if you focus closer than the average long prime could

>>4309580
>but you are getting less light if you focus closer than the average long prime could
That's a pointless comparison, you CAN'T focus closer on average long primes.
>the Z cameras auto-correct the AE
As does F, the aperture is automatically reduced as you focus closer, at least with the lens I have. It really does not matter anyway, you do not want to shoot 1:1 at f/2.8.

>>4309622
You actually have the DOF of f2.8 at 1:1

It's the light transmission of f4.5

>>4309623
So it doesn’t really matter then when using a tripod or additional lighting.

>>4309483
Not quite. A macro lens has better control of distortion especially when you focus closer. Regular lenses are not optimized for that.

>>4309622
Because the DoF will be so shallow as to be useless.

>>4309623
I don't, the aperture gets reduced to around f/5.6 at close focus.

>>4309479
What do you mean by 1:1 ratio on your subject?

>>4310147
It means you can take a picture of a subject that is the size of your camera sensor and it will fill up the whole frame of the picture.

>>4310147
It means the image projected onto the sensor is true to life size, a one to one representation. So for example if you took a picture of a ruler at 1:1 focus, one cm on the ruler will be one cm on the sensor. This of course does not mean it will be 1cm in your image, depending on resolution and cropping and whatever else you may do to the resulting image. Generally considered the minimum for a proper macro lens, despite manufacturers putting 1:2s out there and calling them “macro”.

>>4309479
I have a Canon 35mm F2.8 macro lens with a built-in ring light, absolutely love it as a general purpose lens. Plus it takes fantastic bug pics.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 80D

Camera Software	RawTherapee 5.9

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	4434

Image Height	2979

Compression Scheme	Uncompressed

Pixel Composition	RGB

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format

Image Created	2024:05:01 21:26:26

>>4309479
You know what I like op, shooting with the Nik Z 50 macro but sticking a stack of extension tubes under it anyway, getting a 2:1 magnification without any added distortion. Go out on the lawn and shoot the strange world in the grass jungle.

>>4311773
how are you getting that close without bugs flying away with a 35

>>4309479
they tend to not do too hot at or near infinity

>>4309479
I wish fast Macro lenses were more popular
Reminder to all of you that Tamron's current lens lineup was originally going to also include a 300mm f/2.8 VC USD with 1:1 macro

cANON

>>4314670
>a 300mm f/2.8 VC USD with 1:1 macro
Would it have actually been 300mm at 1:1 or would they have cheated using focus breathing?

Anonymous

>>4314672
It wasn't specified but that would require the minimum focus distance to be 0.6 meters which would require the lens itself to be quite compact for its rated speed


>mfw a pocket "camera" faggot insist that I take them seriously as photographers

>>4314491
The Fuji thread was one up, numbnuts.

>>4314496
>motion blur
Will never be featured in a museum 200 years from now

>>4314498
your mom wont be featured in a museum 200 years from now

>>4314508
we'll see about THAT
Unrel but did you hear about the new Panasonic S9?

>>4314491
Based
Same with crop sensor fags.
>Muh reech

>>4314520
have you heard of the nikon e2s?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D700

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	794

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	145 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2023:12:18 18:39:30

Exposure Time	1/25 sec

F-Number	f/2.8

Exposure Program	Manual

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	145.00 mm

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	1500

Image Height	1000

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Manual

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4314527
wow just needed a canon lens to be ultimate alliance of shitters

>>4314527
I heard he's a pretty cool guy

>>4314523
yeah no evf, no mech shutter, s5ii sensor...
seems like Panasonic tried hard to create a Sigma Fp competitor

>>4314556
Jfc even the a7cr has a whole shutter

>>4314491
>mfw another faggot posts a photoless thread

>>4314491
>pocket "camera"
It's a poor man's poor man's poor man's Leica.