Red Panda

>>4302169
This onion.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	samsung

Camera Model	SM-G973W

Camera Software	G973WVLS8IWD1

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.5

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm

Sensing Method	Not Defined

Image-Specific Properties:

Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)

Image Height	1908

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2023:09:04 14:36:56

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Image Width	4032

Altitude	0.00 m

Time (UTC)

Lens Aperture	f/2.4

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Height	1908

White Balance	Auto

Exposure Time	1/40 sec

Flash	No Flash

F-Number	f/2.4

ISO Speed Rating	320

Image Width	4032

Focal Length	4.30 mm

Light Source	Unknown

My most recent red pandas.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 21:30:11

Exposure Time	1/640 sec

F-Number	f/5.6

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	1600

Lens Aperture	f/5.6

Exposure Bias	1/3 EV

Subject Distance	0.00 m

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	400.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1400

Image Height	2100

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 22:06:44

Exposure Time	1/1250 sec

F-Number	f/5.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/5.0

Exposure Bias	0.7 EV

Subject Distance	0.00 m

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	241.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2100

Image Height	1400

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	3506

Image Height	5260

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 21:44:19

Exposure Time	1/800 sec

F-Number	f/5.6

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	1600

Lens Aperture	f/5.6

Exposure Bias	1/3 EV

Subject Distance	0.00 m

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	400.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1400

Image Height	2101

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	2724

Image Height	4358

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 21:49:23

Exposure Time	1/400 sec

F-Number	f/5.6

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/5.6

Exposure Bias	1/3 EV

Subject Distance	0.00 m

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	300.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1400

Image Height	2240

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:27 21:50:55

Exposure Time	1/640 sec

F-Number	f/5.6

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/5.6

Exposure Bias	1/3 EV

Subject Distance	0.00 m

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	400.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1400

Image Height	2100

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4302169
I want to use its tail to clean some bottles and jars.


Anonymous

TWENTY-FOUR - FIFTY - ONE HUNDRED AND THIRY-FIVE is the way to go AND YOU KNOW IT!

>24
based.
>50
cringe. people only buy this shit focal length because they can't afford equally good 35s/40s.
>135
based again

>>4302433
For me, it's the 20, 35, 135. The best prime combination.

Sugar

14/2.8 EX, 50/1.2 AI-s and 135/2 DC

The true Holy Trinity

Anonymous

FOURTY MINUTES IN and NOT ONE EIGHTY-FIVE FAGGOT MESSING UP my thread. GLORIOUS!

>>4302443
SLIDING SLIGHTLY DOWN ON THE WIDE SIDE is legit but KEEP THAT DISTANCE.

I have my 55mm that I'm pretty happy with, could focus a little closer and be a bit faster but they're not deal breakers. I have a 90mm macro, I've considered getting a 135mm but I just can't imagine myself switching between the two or choosing to take the 135 out over the 90. For a wide I have a 16-35mm f/4, I just don't see the point in a fast wide prime for most of what wide lenses are used for and it's going to be just as expensive, big, and heavy if not more so.

70-200 and a 40mm prime. Anything shorter is a meme and you might as well use your phone

85mm, can drop the 50 and 135 dead weights that way

>>4302433
>the way to go
for what? or do u just bring the same three lenses everytime you shoot?

My issue is I don't take photos of animals often but when I do I need to move quickly, so I either keep a telephoto zoom on and swap it off and back on whenever I want to take a photo or miss critters because I'm trying to change lenses before they run away. I love wide angle and macro too much.

>>4302544
Got you covered senpai

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON Z 7

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.1 (Macintosh)

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	880

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	59 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:24 18:26:13

Exposure Time	1/125 sec

F-Number	f/6.3

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	640

Lens Aperture	f/6.3

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	59.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Custom

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

BurtGummer

15-30mm
24-85mm kit
70-200mm
200mm-500mm

Cover all the range all day. Weight is nothing.

Anonymous

>>4302558
>200-500
Ah, a fellow BIGMA enthusiast, I see.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1280

Image Height	659

Scene Capture Type	Standard

14-24mm 2.8
24-70mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8
anything less is just hobbyist cope

>>4302609
Of course it is, look at it it’s fucking huge. It’s big and it’s sigma, so it’s bigma.

>>4302433
Cunts!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2064

Image Height	1272

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4302437
I agree. But 40 any day, not 35.

>>4302433
>24
Garbage
>35
Garbage
>50
Alright
>135
Pretty good

But you missed the GOAT
85mm

>>4302763
There it is.. EIGHTY-FIVE MILL.. the PINNACLE OF AVERAGENESS! Too wide for a decent compression... too TIGHT FOR ANYTHING ELSE BUT PREDICTABLE BODY SHOTS OF FAT CHICKS WITH A FOUR TO FIVE BODY RATIO!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	PhotoScape

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi

Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>4302627
>5.6-6.3
Literally sub-mft tier but at much more expense and weight. Stick to f/4 or below

>>4302801
>Literally sub-mft tier but at much more expense and weight. Stick to f/4 or below
Micro four thirds has a 90-300 f2.8-3.1? Really? Where? Does it also cost $2000, work with teleconverters, focus internally with industry leading weather sealing, have a secondary control ring, and have a nearly flawless optical design?

Is this like when I was told f4 zooms were mft tier but mft tier was paying $1500 for an f3.4 zoom with a truncated range?

>>4302803
teleconverters on that, what a joke. at least you have a uh, "secondary control ring". seems real useful and definitely not a cope! none of that changes the fact that you're hitting damn near 6.3 early in the zoom range.

>>4302803
yes its going on sale soon with the micro four thirds body that has 45mp and a base ISO of 15

>>4302807
Does the micro four thirds 90-300 f2.8-3.1 also hit damn near 6.3 early in the zoom range? Is it also so sharp that with the compatible 1.4x teleconverter it's only as "soft" as a slightly cheaper zoom?

>>4302808
Awesome, placing my g9vi preorder now

>>4302810
I don't actually know or care about mft lenses, all I know is you're hauling around a shitty overpriced zoom that hits f/6.3 on a full frame camera. Telephoto zooms are and have always been a scam for hobbyists.

>>4302811
Concession accepted, bucko.

Don't bother progressing to larping as "rich" and lying about buying a telephoto prime. I don't want you to end up like that guy who couldn't return his troll purchase before his credit card bill was due.

>>4302814
>not just paying interest until you can sell it on ebay
its worth the epic btfo on /p/ - gear

>>4302814
>all this insecure projection
Here are some simple facts: the 180-600 is not as sharp as Nikon's S lenses. Nikon has many very sharp primes that are not that much more expensive. If you have a Z body and the 180-600 you can afford the 400mm/4.5 that *actually* is very sharp and with faster AF. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter it's sharper than the 180-600 at 600. Sorry you got scammed I guess, you can always resell. Hope you take good care of your stuff.

>>4302801
>>4302807
>>4302811
>6.3
>6.3
>6.3
You know, if you didn't have a body with a baby sensor that sucks above ISO 1600 you wouldn't care so much about needing to have fast lenses.

>>4302865
Oh my god the absolute furthest edges of the image (which my sensor doesn't even cover) are slightly lower contrast in return for being able to span an extra 200mm in either direction what a fucking ripoff and it goes to f6.3 thats unusable on my z50 fucking dropped

For people who dont speak MTF chart, up and down is contrast and side to side is distance from the image center. Red is fat details and blue is thin details. The dotted and solid lines represent lines going in different directions because sometimes lenses blur more in one direction than another.

Differences around 0.1 contrast and less are not detectable by human (not pixel peeper) observers of real photographs of real subjects, and vanish unless you go out of your way to turn off unsharp mask (only spergs do that). Differences past around that 15/20 line for distance from the center are never observed except in landscape photography and prolonged pixel peeping sessions. No one actually looks at those areas of a photo. It's only relevant to film scanning. You should see the MTF charts of lenses landscape photographers go gaga for - they are actually worse, but no one fucking cares

>>4303604
It's a meme.

Btw: MFaggoTs, GET OUT OR DID YOU HEAR ME SAY 'TWELVE - TWENTY-FIVE - SIXTY-SEVEN'?!

>>4302627
>>4302564

unironically, what the hell is the use case of these

>>4303725
Perspective control.

I want you to imagine a branch on a tree that's about 3 meters off the ground. There's a bird on that branch. You can get as close as you want, and the angle from you to the bird will get steeper, until you are just looking at its asshole.

With a big lens, you can stand further away, so you are more level with the bird, and still fill more of the frame.

>>4303725
the green giant was produced for news photography e.g. in stadiums iirc
it was never meant to be practical or affordable

>>4303725
Photographing football games. From a fixed position.

it makes a lot more sense than their 500mm f5.6
>its a "sports" lens
>there is not one single good sports body it goes on, just slow panasonics with shit AF and their overpriced counterparts (same camera rebadged as leica)
>put it on your high FPS snoy and it cuts to 15fps with c-af and you can't use teleconverters

>>4302855
>implying I own one sensor size
cry more. I own more gear than you and I know a scam when I see it. This lens is not worth almost 2k new. No clue why shilling Nikon is the new hotness on /p/ but their shit is overpriced. Their explicitly anti competive rules for 3rd party lenses should be evidence enough but you retards just love fellating corporate penis.

>>4304020
>IDS NAHD SHARP
>mtf chart and real photos both demonstrate sharpness. even pixel peeping on a z7
>IDS 2 SLOW
>no faster 600mm zoom exists. Sony's is longer on the wide end and the same speed. canon is glad to sell you a $2000 200-800 f6.3-9 tho (no weather sealing)
>BUY THE TELEPHOTO PRIIIIME THATS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LENS
Lemme guess you bought the 400mm telephoto prime and regret not having the 220mm/200mm on either side lol

>>4304026
With a teleconverter 600mm-ish is within range of a 400mm prime, and a 400mm prime is sharp enough to handle it unlike a zoom. "Sharp enough" is relative but that zoom is not sharp or fast enough to take TCs.

>>4304242
Judging by the photos people take with it, with and without TCs, it's sharp and fast enough to take TCs.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikko<wbr>rz180-600/pool/

A 400mm f4.5 + 1.4x tc = 600m f6.3, 2x tc = 800m f9. 180-600+1.4x tc = 840mm f8.8. nothing achieved except slightly different mtf chart (who cares). Can't do 180mm but slightly lighter, wow thats it? That's the power of spending an extra $1000 on a prime lens so you can shoot 1 stop faster at 400mm? I thought these were full frame cameras so you could raise the ISO one stop and not care? Is bokeh that important when it's already hard to get an entire sparrow in focus?

>>4304243
>I thought these were full frame cameras so you could raise the ISO one stop and not care
No, the point is to take superior photos and printing/uploading at larger sizes. If you use a slower longer lens and higher ISOs you're using an overpriced crop sensor functionally.

>>4304307
>Slower
Unless you want to buy the 400mm f2.8, your 400mm f4.5+1.4x TC (or plus APS-C body) is the same speed at 600mm. There is no equivalently faster 600mm on crop either except for sticking a $5000 EF 400mm f4 on an r7.
>But higher ISOs
You forgot something, the Z7II, Z8, and Z9 are all 45mp and the Z6II and ZF have their gain stages positioned so their DR beats equivalence and the colors stay very stable at high ISOs. With a high MP camera you can crop and essentially have a crop sensor, print full size, or you can downsample, which reduces the impact of noise.

Do you really think they pay camera companies to release stupid products or are you perhaps the stupid one

The nice expensive camera does in fact take slightly prettier pictures and it's hard to find fault with it unless it's an OM system/pentax product (because those aren't real brands, they're zombies). Like how are you going to find fault with, on the other hand, a G9II+100-400? It's not FF performance, but it has FF flagship gimmicks for a reasonable price.

The answer is the people who make these products are smarter than you. The only stupid thing on the market is the consumer!

>>4304314
full frame has other advantages as well, it's not a one lens system, and you dont need a perfect MTF chart to have a sharp lens as your sensor gets bigger. hence the praise the GFX system gets while /p/ is posting MTF SHARTS saying "LOOK HOW BAD GF LENSES ARE MY SNOY GM...

Why does no one here like UW? It's my favorite focal range when I can make it work.

>>4302433
18mm pancake with fixed f8 is all you need

>>4302433
>was first using 35 85 135
>got a 21
>sold the 35
>nowtheresabiggap.arw
>got a 55
>stopped using 21 and 85 altogether
>stuck with using only 55 and 135 to this day
sometimes i wish a had a super wide like 21 or 18 just to see what else kind of compositions i can come up with for my scene but other than that, i can do literally ANYTHING with just 55 and 135

>>4307239
>i can do literally ANYTHING with just 55 and 135>

Totally based.

>>4302433
The real trinity:
>fast normal/wide angle zoom (f/2.8 constant aperture, 17-50 mm crop, 22/28-70/80 mm full frame)
>fast normal prime (35 mm f/1.4-2.0 crop or 50 mm f/1.4 full frame)
>telezoom with image stabilisation (if you don't have IBIS)
Going all primes is stupid in this day and age, at the very least the telephoto lens should be a zoom lens for the additional flexibility as well as reach.
>24 mm f/2.8
>50/35 mm f/1.4
>70-300 mm f/4-5.6 with image stabilisation
Would make more sense on a FF body

>>4311301
>Going all primes is stupid in this day and age
Virtually all supertelephoto requires lots of speed for good results, normally zooms can't cut it. 70-200 is good for portraits and such but after that you're going to be limited if you pick a zoom over a telephoto because you probably are using the reach for sports or wildlife. All the fieldcraft and "just get closer"ing won't save you from a blurry shot when your target does something cool (ie, moves).

>>4302433
>>4302443
R8 my lens collection

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Photographer	AJ

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4311315
I specified image stabilisation for a reason, because your main issue beyond 200 mm comes from shake, not target movement.
However if you went with primes instead, you'd need at least 5 lenses:
>24 f/2.8
>50 f/1.x
>135 f/2.8
>200 f/2.8
>300 f/4
Where as zooms allow you to get away with 3 (perhaps even 2) lenses, either:
>24
>50
>70-300 f/4-5.6 image stabilised
or
>24-70 ish f/2.8
>70-300 f/4-5.6 image stabilised
>maybe 50 mm f/1.4
And keep in mind, you have to carry all of that plus water and perhaps other gear on a trip.

>>4311320
The absence of 85 mm in your collection has been well regarded.

21mm and 40mm. Everything else is bloat, slop, cringe and garbage. Not a single good photo has been taken on 150mm+. Get closer


good purchase

Hi im working at a summer camp this summer and want to buy a new camera for it is the om system tough tg-7 a good choice In your opinion?

It's a waterproof camera but the quality is like an android phone (so slightly better than apple)

No reason to buy a new one of these when they are only marginally better than the ones from a few years ago, the ones from a few years ago depreciating like milk. Use that to your advantage and buy a noticeably cheaper used one off of MPB or whatever. Save your pennies.

>>4303153
It's the best/only real option in its class. You can drop it on rocks (advertising says it can be crushed under 100kg of pressure) unlike a phone and it does much better macro, take photos underwater (not just splash proof like other cameras). IQ isn't great and it doesn't have manual controls annoyingly. If you want kids to play with the thing or if you just want to not worry about damage it's a great choice though. Tg-6 and tg-7 are nearly the same, but it's a cheap camera either way. There's also accessories (some people like the diffuser I think?) but they're not essential. You can get proper underwater housing for diving too way cheaper than other cameras. It also has gps tagging like a phone in case you want to document something you found.

Sugar

>>4303153

They're pretty good. An older version of this, TG-4 is what I upgraded from when I went to a dedicated underwater Ikelite housing. You will definitely like it. The newer model has a better sensor and handles higher ISOs pretty well for a compact. Well worth the money.

>>4303159

Not the single digit TG's. I had an 870 and you are right, but the IQ was atrocious, though I loved the flippy screen which made composition easy underwater.

These have much better sensors in them but no flippy screen. The lenses are much better and faster too I believe this has an f1.8 or f2 lens on it. I almost bought one until a great deal on an Ikelite setup fell in my lap for my D800

Anonymous

4chan seems to have eaten my post, so sorry if it posts twice
Yes. Takes great macro photos and is good for outdoor rough and tumble use. Here's a hoverfly I found earlier today. It can get much closer detail than this if your subject cooperates and lets you shove the camera right up to it. This photo isn't indicative of the quality because I had to screenshot it due to embedded file error

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	720

Image Height	1640

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2024:04:11 00:30:59

Light Source	Unknown

Time (UTC)	05:30:59

Date (UTC)	2024:04:11

>>4303153
It's BIS tough available. I myself only have ancient AW-100 which has not aged well (it's objectively digishit now) but it still can go where my dslr simply can't. A 2nd hand dslr/mirrorless kit would be better for getting into 'serious' photography, but a tough is ideal for having fun snapping at summer camp and a good 2nd cameratoo for anyone, hobbyist or pro.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON

Camera Model	COOLPIX AW100

Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.12

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.9

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:04:11 08:55:49

Exposure Time	1/800 sec

F-Number	f/3.9

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	125

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Flash

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	5.90 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	4608

Image Height	3456

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	High Gain Down

Contrast	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Macro

Altitude	0.00 m

Time (UTC)

Color Mode	COLOR

Focus Mode	AF-S

ISO Selection	MANUAL

ISO Speed Used	125

Image Adjustment	AUTO

Noise Reduction	OFF

Image Quality	FINE

Saturation	Normal

Image Sharpening	AUTO

White Balance	FLASH

Auto Focus	Center

>>4303153
this camera is actually pretty crap
the lens is the worst part of it and you'll never get crisp quality photos out of it

it is basically e-waste shit in a rugged protective body that makes it usable for rough conditions
if you need rugged camera, whatever, it's fine
if you need quality photos, you're sacrificing those for the ruggedness

choose wisely
you can't have both for this price

>>4303153
Nope. I would recommend a cambo wide, graflex slxw, sinar handy, or if you're feeling fiesty a linhof master technika with a cammed rodenstock 105mm. Any one should be perfect for your use case.

>>4303153
1/2.3" is small and noisy.
Lumix GX8 is cheaper and weather-sealed with dust and splash proof when paired with appropiate lenses and gives you more than decent quality photos
https://www.m43lenses.com/

>>4305995
Not one singe “weather sealed” camera, even pentax and nikon, comes close to the olympus tough

ALL weather sealing allows some water to enter. It just means your camera dies in years, not hours.

>>4303153
i'll let you in on a secret anon
sony rx0

>>4303153
looks like the type of shoe in autist would wear


Any recommendations?

Ordered a telescope on eBay a few weeks ago and it was the first clear night in weeks last night. With no experience using telescopes or space photography, managed to capture this with my iPhone held up to the eyepiece - no tripod.

Was really quite enjoyable setting up and trying to capture it and would like to do more of it.

So, any recommendations for starting gear, tripods, applications, any information you could give basically would be greatly appreciated!!

>>4304282
just doing the moon and easy deep space objects,
literally any camera and a telescope adapter

it's more about the software you use to stack photos and setting up a tracking mount unless you want NASA quality

>>4304282
Using phone camera with a telescope. Results as expected. Either get a real camera and proper adapter for your telescope, or simply use the viewfinder and enjoy the telescope. Phones and telescopes are often worse than a camera with a decent lens.

>>4304282
Is the waviness atmospheric distortions or some phone AI postprocess stuff trying to fill in detail it thinks should be there?

>>4304918
Are you talking about the banding?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colou<wbr>r_banding

>>4304282
Got some things that were fun for me and not bank breaking to try out if you are looking to expand on the hobby.

theres pretty cheap adapters for phones that allow you to hook up your phone to the telescope and take pictures trough the eyepiece,

If you still have a canon/nikon DSLR laying around you can look for whats called a T2 ring, it allows you to attach your camera to your telescope and essentialy use the telescope as your lens,

Youve probably noticed by now that theres no zoom button on your telescope, you can achieve different levels of 'magnification' by buying different eye pieces, the simpelest way to look at this is the smaller the mm the more 'zoomed' in the view will feel, you probably got a standard 25m with the telescope, maybe look into getting something around 10mm aswell and maybe a 2x barlow lens.

as the other anon said a big part comes from the software, look up youtube videos that teach you how to stack the pictures you take from the nightsky and the right settings for your camera

lastly try to share the hobby with other people in your circle, if youre looking at something cool call over a family member, or throw out the telescope when you have friends over, ud be surprised how many people have never looked trough one.

>>4306519
Nah look really close at the surface of the moon it has an odd texture that my mind tends to associate with AI images or otherwise modified images.

>>4306644
I think it's a light breeze fucking up OPs stabilization

>>4307518
This, it looks blurry, and some parts are over-sharpened.

>>4306644
I can tell you definitively that this is a shit image, but whether that's due to "ai slop" in your phone or just general overbaking denoising+sharpening applied I can't say.

The ridiculous banding is what jumps out and screams "shit image, shit shit shit, bad bad!" but yes the "fine details" (there are none) are also shit here.
I don't know what to say other than you must shoot RAW, and avoid proprietary "special"RAW formats and stick with regular RAWs.

>>4309798
The fact he managed to line up the eyepiece and phones camera is mildly impressive IMO. Go try it sometime and see how quickly you loose your shit...


Bridge camera aka MASSIVE BONER camera

>>4302919
> 24-600mm equivalent
why. you can get 150-600s cheap enough and they'll be far higher quality than this. i'm sure my 500pf with a 2x teleconverter and cropped 50% gives a better image than a p1000 too

I think if anything beats bridges it's mft, it can be just as or more affordable, has better iq, equally good stabilization video etc. and you can use a superzoom like a 24-400 equivalent or put on a reasonably fast lens if it gets dark, and your lenses work with tiny bodies to larger ones with better performance. They're smaller too.

>>4302942
Well, you'll then need a 24-whatever zoom to cover the rest of the range and have to put up with needing to swap lenses. Plus the RX10 is significantly smaller and lighter, about half the weight of a 150-600mm on its own and similar in size to a mirrorless body and the normal zoom. Yes the resulting images won't be as high quality but they will be adequate and for some people that is good enough.

>>4302919
no, it's been over for years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC_<wbr>s0EeTFzg

can micro four thirds replace these somehow?

>>4302919
Any camera I use is a big-penis camera because I have a big penis.
I shoot Fuji.

Hardly a bridge exclusive feature.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON Z 7

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.1 (Macintosh)

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	880

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024:03:24 18:26:14

Exposure Time	1/100 sec

F-Number	f/6.3

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	640

Lens Aperture	f/6.3

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	50.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Custom

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Super benis zoom

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4302919
>>4307943
nor a new one for that matter
(yes, i saved this thread from death, your'e welcome.)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi

Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

Image Created	2024:05:09 22:57:53

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	474

Image Height	1060

recently got one<br>also thinking about getting the P1000


What was your first digital camera?

>pic related

Got it in 2004 for my birthday. Dad spent $400 on this sucker plus the 256-512MB memory cards. It was awesome with the 4x optical zoom and fit in the back seat compartment of my motorcycle so I took it everywhere and got some great pictures. Sensor died not even three years later so my only complaint.

I’ll have to grab a few shots from my computer later, but looking back at some of the pics I’m still impressed with the quality of this little guy. They sometimes have that “DSLR” look instead of the processed iPhone camera look.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1068

Image Height	801

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Oh man, it was some Mustek camcorder i got for my 12'th or 13'th birthday.
I still have it somewhere too, thats the funny part.
I wish i was into photography back then, would have been cool to have some memories as opposed to really shitty b-roll.

>>4305294
What model is it? Looks a lot like a finepix E510 i had in my possession a short while before i shamelessly flipped it. I have handled quite a lot of digicams, but that one for some reason stood out for me. I just like the esthetics of it. It was nice to handle as well.

Nikon coolpix 5200. Got it for my 10th or 11th birthday I think. Found it in my parents attic a year or so ago. Had to buy a new battery but it still works great.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1280

Image Height	960

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4305299
Here’s a random snapshit I took with it. Gotta use it more it’s a lot of fun with the little tunnel viewfinder. I do wish it had a shutter priority mode though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON

Camera Model	E4200

Camera Software	E4200 V 1.0

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	41 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2004:02:19 23:34:02

Exposure Time	1/724 sec

F-Number	f/4.9

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	79

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Auto

Focal Length	8.50 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2272

Image Height	1704

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	High

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Nikon D50. Here's the oldest photo I can find from it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D50

Camera Software	Ver.1.00

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2007:04:04 14:54:45

Exposure Time	1/1600 sec

F-Number	f/2.8

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	200

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	50.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2000

Image Height	3008

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

oh no

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D50

Camera Software	Ver.1.00

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2007:04:04 22:57:38

Exposure Time	1/40 sec

F-Number	f/1.8

Exposure Program	Manual

ISO Speed Rating	400

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Cool White Fluorescent

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	50.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1333

Image Height	2000

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Manual

White Balance	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4305294
Olympus SP-510 UZ.
7.1 megapixel snapshits were all mine. Purchased this with the first paycheck I got on some of my jobs, don’t remember which one.

Some unintentionally cool stuff in here actually.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D50

Camera Software	Ver.1.00

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	824

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2007:02:03 12:10:40

Exposure Time	1/10 sec

F-Number	f/36.0

Exposure Program	Manual

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Spot

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	55.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	3008

Image Height	2000

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	None

Contrast	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

ISO Speed Used	400

Image Quality	FINE

White Balance	AUTO

Image Sharpening	AUTO

Focus Mode	MANUAL

Flash Setting	NORMAL

Flash Compensation	0.0 EV

ISO Speed Requested	400

Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV

AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV

Tone Compensation	AUTO

Lens Type	Nikon D Series

Lens Range	18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6

Auto Focus	Center

Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off

Color Mode	Landscape sRGB

Lighting Type	NATURAL

Noise Reduction	OFF

Camera Actuations	804

Image Optimization	NORMAL

Saturation 2	NORMAL

Some disposable Kodak from the late 90s early 00s<br>IDK which one

>>4305294
Is this the zoomer datamining thread? Why are digishit camera suddenly $50-100 right now?

I shared a Powershot S3 with its 7 megapickels of fury beforehand (having a typical white-sneakers father who liked photography and loved zoom, but lacked the know how or budget for an SLR), but an SX130 was the first one that was my own. Loved that little thing, I carried it loose in a backpack daily for years until the screen got all sorts of scuffed and the metal ring surrounding the lens got a huge dent in it and somehow it still works great once you slap two AAs in. Typical late 2000s Canon that punched above where you'd expect it to in the price/size range and with really pleasing colors and surprising sharpness that made me a Canon fanboy for a long time, even without raw since 15 years later I don't think the CHDK build for it ever left beta.

>>4305330
That makes me identifiably younger than some posters here despite being a 30 year old boomer, but sometimes I forget how average age varies by board. Anyway, one of those chinkshit "phone sensor in an off-brand body with someone else's name slapped on" cameras you see everywhere now clones the body of a decade and a half old point and shoot (mixing the 130 and 150, judging by the chrome bit) and it makes me a little sad because I got so much use out of the real thing.

>>4305294
first camera was a (pentax? kodak?) 300x600 camera. used a 3.5mm pin to serial cable to download the photos from and only had a capacity for about 5 images. it sucked. obviously.
next was a sony mavica with the 1.44mb floppy drive, was kinda cool, but still sucked and it drained batteries like a gameboy on a long road trip.
3rd shitty camera was my Canon Powershot A520. did my first photoshoot on that thing, took it to a heap of parties, but quickly realised how bad it actually was at most things. heaps of motion blur, weird exposure settings in low light. fine in good light, but kinda overall meh.

went out and bought a 450D not long after and thats what I could consider my first 'good' camera. slapped on an external flash and it became my party whore. in later years it turned into my go-to studio photoshoot camera while i got into medium format film/

not sure why zoomers want to go back to this look. you can easily get it with a modern camera by using low ISO, a huge flash and add a slow shutter speed to add some shitty blur (then add digital and colour noise in post), bonus is you get an image size larger than a postage stamp

>>4305294
For me it was picrel, hp m417, which was mediocre even for its time. But my parents went with cheap but still functional, rather than go cheap into junk off brand tier. They got it for me getting a 4.0 junior year or something like that back in 2004ish. Being a digital hoarder since I think I still have pics from it somewhere, but not many. Honestly though it’s one of those things where if we look at the specs and performance today we’d call it a piece of trash, but using it back then was fine, fun even because I was one of the first kids I knew with a digital camera. Funny how that works.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1280

Image Height	419

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4305382
Picrel is what the output was like. Kept it for longer than I thought I did it would seem.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Hewlett-Packard

Camera Model	Photosmart M417

Camera Software	730_RF

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2009:01:28 06:03:22

Exposure Time	1/427 sec

F-Number	f/4.8

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	100

Lens Aperture	f/4.8

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Subject Distance	30.00 m

Metering Mode	Average

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Auto

Focal Length	6.25 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2576

Image Height	1952

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	Unknown

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Hard

Subject Distance Range	Distant View

I got a cybershot for christmas, it might be this same model. I still have it but it's in storage right now. I still use it sometimes.<br>The first and only digital camera I bought for myself was a fujifilm x-t100 which I initially got just to scan film but then I switched to digital because it's easier.

>>4305327
it's been like that for longer than suddenly. It's only a matter of time until hipsters start using old shit anyways. It's practically an investment to buy literally anything now and make an article or video about it 10-20 years later

>>4305294
Kodak DX6490. Got it as a hand-me-down around 2010. Excellent colour science with terrible dynamic range. Still got it, and it works, though the mode dial switch is worn, it keeps shifting between modes on its own.

>>4305312
Hey I got this one on me right now
Is it ok to take some shots?
I don't really know how to use it

Powershot a40. Bought with my first salary.

AGFA ePhoto Smile
First camera that was sub-$100 (on sale.) And I didn't even have a proper connection to offload the photos. It was only set up for PCs, and I had a Macintosh with a video capture card. So I fed the playback through that and took video screencaps.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	iPhoto 9.6.1

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2020:12:14 11:17:31

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	870

Image Height	942

Nikon Coolpix L18 because I was a poorfag. Kind of miss the little dude, wish I hadn't sold it, but every penny mattered back then.

Coolpix P2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon PowerShot S110

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 2024 Windows

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Created	2024-04-24T20:51:56+02:00

Exposure Time	1/30 sec

F-Number	f/2.5

ISO Speed Rating	80

Lens Aperture	f/2.5

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	5.20 mm

Image Width	1453

Image Height	1180

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4307360
I have one of those, but the set button doesn't work

probably a sony dsc-w55 but it's more of the family digicam than mine since i was a kid back then

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	SONY

Camera Model	DSC-W55

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2008:11:15 09:42:04

Exposure Time	1/50 sec

F-Number	f/4.0

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	125

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce, Return Detected

Focal Length	10.90 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2592

Image Height	1944

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

>>4305294
I never actually properly owned a camera, but for some time I had this lying around in my drawer, it was my sister's. I never actually used it though.

>>4310005
Here's a random photo from it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon IXY DIGITAL 810 IS

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Lens Size	5.80 - 23.20 mm

Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.00

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi

Vertical Resolution	180 dpi

Image Created	2010:11:07 15:21:19

Exposure Time	1/60 sec

F-Number	f/2.8

Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Flash	No Flash, Auto

Focal Length	5.80 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	2048

Image Height	1536

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Focus Type	Auto

Metering Mode	Evaluative

ISO Speed Rating	Auto

Sharpness	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Contrast	Normal

Shooting Mode	Full Auto

Image Size	Unknown

Focus Mode	Single

Drive Mode	Single

Flash Mode	Red-Eye Reduction (Auto)

Compression Setting	Superfine

Macro Mode	Normal

Subject Distance	65.530 m

White Balance	Auto

Exposure Compensation	3

Sensor ISO Speed	160

Image Number	102-2962

pretty sure it was this bad boy, Nikon Coolpix 2500 with a whooping 1.9 megapixels

This cheapo Nytech cam from Aldi (I think) somewhere in 2003.

Pentax Optio A20, got it for my confirmation. My mother still uses it and I kinda want to by her a new camera and use it myself.

kodak easyshare m863, not bad quality camera, good sharp, but battery is not good

kodak easyshare CX7310
my dad got it for free with a nat geo subscription
I still have it but don't use it as much since it runs on double AAs

For me it was the lz2. I don't think I have a single photo from it still.

this little guy

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T1i

Camera Software	PaintShop Pro 16.00

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	1486

Image Height	1820

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2017:01:02 15:41:18

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1486

Image Height	1820

Exposure Time	1/160 sec

F-Number	f/5.6

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	400

Lens Aperture	f/5.7

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	21.00 mm

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

The first digital camera i actually bought myself was my Canon T3, that i still use.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Zach

I borrowed my brother's and my dad's powershot camera. Afterwards I had a Flip camera passed down to me that I sold. I experimented with super 8 not able to get an image that my parents donated. On my 18th birthday I got a T2i and from then on I've been using it for 11 years and I'm 29.

Anonymous

KODAK EASYSHARE CX6200 DIGITAL CAMERA
Surprised the quality was way better than upscaled vga webcam stuff for only 50 euros.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

Camera Model	KODAK EASYSHARE CX6200 DIGITAL CAMERA

Camera Software	Version 1.0100

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	230 dpi

Vertical Resolution	230 dpi

Exposure Time	657/125000 sec

F-Number	f/4.5

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	100

Lens Aperture	f/4.5

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	4.99 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1632

Image Height	1232

Exposure Index	100

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


Soviet Glass.

Alright, now is the time to buy.

Apparently hollywood is using soviet photo glass for movies now. Companies are rehousing them into film lenses.

Dune 2 was shot entirely on old Soviet glass.

I know the Helios m42 is legend. what else should I look at.

I am on L mount.

>>4304170
Why not just melt some glass over a cereal bowl and call it soviet glass? Profit!

>>4304451
>If you have Hollywood money why would you not just buy an actual Jena Biotar at that point?
Nobody does professional-level rehousing of them. And also there are no so much copies of biotars on market (just a magic part of soviet economy when goods produced not because people need them, but to make peepo do something continuously)

>>4304488
>Why cant we have some helios 103's rehoused for M mount
haven't people with eyes of cunts released it yet?

>>4304488
Contax RF mount superiority proved once again

>>4304451
>>4304467

yeah, there are millions of helios floating around. the re-housing company is in Ukraine, and I imagine building a company without a steady flow of available glass is pretty fucking hard.

 people are getting some amazing results with them. I picked up a pretty fresh looking 44m-4 off of ebay for $60 wtih free shipping from bulgaria. excited.

I would recommend picking up a lens now while you can. there is a lot of chatter about these lenses.

>>4304170
>Dune
They shot these movies with old obsolete lenses because if the world saw that goblin Zendaya in real HD they would never recover from it, and they'd go bankrupt.

Dune looked bad for a reason people.

cANON

>>4304488
Nice digits, heil'd
>>4305361
Absolutely kek

Anonymous

there is some guy on ebay refurbishing and adding the mount of your chosing to soviet lenses, "Retro photo shop" i think who does it relatively cheap. highly recommend got one for nikon F mount

>>4304170
i'm lucky as fuck since i moved to armenia six months ago and easily got a zenit camera which has a helios with it

>>4305361
Realest post on this websight tbqhwy it’s insane to me how our celebrity board (/tv/) has even accepted this Hollywood goblin as “hot”.

Correct, now is the time to buy at inflated prices due to all the youtubers hyping them up. The real time to buy was years ago.

By the time something is memed, and by the time you jump on the bandwagon, the bleeding edge folks will have already moved on to the next gimmick.

In summary, there's lots of lenses out there, experiment. Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters.

>>4304170
Why would people shoot that film on Soviet you're a glass when it's meant to be displayed in imax?

>>4305872
All these old lenses are shit and unique. Eventually some normie movie will be shot on olympussy sucko lenses and those will be $500 a pop. Get your 135mm f2.8s while you can.

>>4305918
Because “soft” lenses still have a lot of detail, it’s just not as crispy.

>>4305872
Dylanfags are insufferable, especially the ones who don't really get the lyrics they quote

>>4305921
This statement makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to display stuff in an IMAX theater you need resolution and detail.

>>4306238
It has detail. The individual hairs are there. Just not as contrasty. Too sharp of a lens and it looks like a 3d render or AI enhanced. Why do you think mirrorless portraits shot with flawless lenses like the nikon noct and plena look uncanny before retouching? Human vision isnt nearly that sharp. If nikon had a 100mp camera you could crop super sharp 5mp images out of it, the sharpest 5mp has ever been, with the plena attached. It’s actually too much.

>>4305872
>Correct, now is the time to buy at inflated prices due to all the youtubers hyping them up. The real time to buy was years ago

these lenses are like $60 with free shipping faggot. have fun when they are $200 in a couple years.

>>4307249
i'm the anon that is in armenia, they're about $20 WITH the zenit cameras here, it's cheap as fuck

>>4304170
Here is the list of most common ones with description and tests

https://radojuva.com/en/photo-revie<wbr>w/#russian

>>4304170
>soviet glass to L mount
10/10 op thank you

I shouldn't have bought mine from Ukraine, it got stuck in K-City for nearly a month.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Model	moto g power (2021)

Equipment Make	motorola

Sensing Method	Not Defined

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	4000

Image Height	3000

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2024:05:03 18:08:00

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

ISO Speed Rating	400

Exposure Program	Normal Program

F-Number	f/1.7

Exposure Time	1/24 sec

Focal Length	4.71 mm

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Light Source	D65

Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Image Height	3000

White Balance	Auto

Brightness	-1.8 EV

Exposure Mode	Auto

Image Width	4000

Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4304170
>Dune 2 was shot entirely on old Soviet glass.
the Helios was a bit of an odd choice in this scene imo, it's just the emperor talking about politics with his daughter but the swirl makes it feel like a dizzying dream


Is everything after the D700 diminishing returns?

I bought a D700 off ebay some time in 2019ish before the youtube people made it inflate in price.

I don't see a reason to upgrade, everything seems like diminishing returns. Don't need any more megapixels, autofocus is fast enough, build quality is great, body is a tank, color science is great, great lens ecosystem.

What are honestly the advantages of upgrading? More muh megapixels? I don't see the point when this thing is perfect. Even the newest hottest most basedest 2024 shit is like 10% better at most, and thats in niche scenarios.

>gear bait thread
>posts a camera from google images
Use the camera you like the most
>but if you- the- according to this- the codec dynamic range chart- cost value analysis-
Use the camera you like the most

Sage

>>4304246
> I don't see a reason to upgrade
Then don’t, faggot.
/thread
All fields

Anonymous

>>4304246
That's nice, why not show us some pics you took with it? I'll be nice, I promise.

>>4304246
There hasn't been a meaningful improvement to image quality since ~2013. Really when buying a camera today you should be more concerned with ergonomics in a total sense. By that I mean button placement, grip, size, weight, EVF/OVF quality, tactile feel.

There are some neat features in modern camera that I personally find very helpful, such as manual focus punch in and articulating screens.

You also have lens selection, which is arguably more important than a specific camera body.

So to answer your initial question. Yes, it is well within diminishing returns in pure image quality. But there are other considerations which may make it worth it to buy something newer.

>>4304246
Only you can make the judgement of whether it's worth upgrading to a newer camera or not. Upgrading to even a D800 over a D700 gets you a lower base sensitivity, higher dynamic range, and better low light performance. I have both a D800 and a D3, which is basically a D700 with a bigger battery, extra card slot, and integrated vertical grip. I like the look of the D3 for portraits, and I still use it on occasion for this purpose, as I don't feel that it's necessary to capture a whole 36MP of detail all the time.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D3

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	778

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi

Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

Image Created	2023:07:31 11:55:31

Exposure Time	1/640 sec

F-Number	f/1.8

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/1.8

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash

Focal Length	85.00 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

>>4304319
I do, however primarily use the D800, because of the aforementioned reasons, and I like the extra detail most of the time.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D800

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	844

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi

Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

Image Created	2023:07:31 11:33:17

Exposure Time	1/40 sec

F-Number	f/1.8

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	1600

Lens Aperture	f/1.8

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	85.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Gain Control	High Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Do boomers still only buy camera bodies that have dual memory card slots? That might be one factor as well

>>4304318
>There hasn't been a meaningful improvement to image quality since ~2013
Noisewise, yeah
Throw in shadow recovery... it's not so clear cut. The Z6II has better shadow recovery than the D750, D800, D810, etc. The Z7II might be a little worse than the D850, a little.

It alsp depends on what you tolerate lenswise

Sure, if you buy top tier primes (on DSLRs these get fucking BIG) and professional telephoto zooms, things have changed very little. But mid tier primes and zooms have gotten much sharper and smaller on mirrorless, ala rangefinder lenses, especially since the image circle no longer needs to even look like a photo before corrections - see canon 10-20mm. And it's gotten a lot easier to get a 24-70 f2.8 that's as sharp as most primes were historically. I don't think shit like the sony 20-70 f4 or the sheer quality of nikon's kit zooms was doable on DSLRs, at least not at the same size and price point.

>>4304326
>throw in shadow recovery
the 2012 D4 would like to have a word with you

>>4304246
>I bought a d700
But did you use it
Shit bro do you even have one

Let's see your pictures or at least a picture of your camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Apple

Camera Model	iPhone SE (3rd generation)

Camera Software	17.3.1

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	2667

Image Height	2000

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2024:04:14 14:10:57

Exposure Time	1/28 sec

F-Number	f/1.8

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	640

Lens Aperture	f/1.8

Brightness	-1.1 EV

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	3.99 mm

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	4032

Image Height	3024

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4304246

But you can spend $3k and base your entire personality on a modern camera and pretend it makes you a good photographer without having to learn anything about photography at all.
Success in photography is not about photos or popularity, it’s about having the camera with the highest specs.

>>4304357
You sound bitter and delusional. No one said this.

Did you maybe try and say your mft camera had more dynamic range than full frame and get pwned?

>>4304329
What a lovely experience.
DF exists if you just wanna have fun.

>>4304366

Try bringing up how anything over 24mp is pointless and see how you go around here, or how mirrorless view finders have lag compared to optical.
These things really trigger the modern mirrorless photography user who would have been better buying an old dslr but refuse to admit it.

>>4304246
The D810e was the ultimate Nik. Big jump up in noise/img quarity, works with every lens evarrrr, F mount so affordabibble, 36 MEGA PICKSUHLS. I don't know why you'd bother with a 700. Get the 810 or sell it all and go full Z, like those fucking russians, just not totally like the retarded neighbor-murdering cuntbag motherfucking god damned russians. The good Z. Nigga you can get a fuckin used Z7 for like a thousand bones with 45 megasmurfs and just call it a day. ...then spend $6000 on like 2 good lenses. Yea they getcha on the glass. Protip: 14-30mm + 85mm Prime = cleanliness/godliness

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi

Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

Image Width	600

Image Height	676

>>4304369
>over 24mp is pointless
It depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. Usually, this goes like
>NO YOUR WANTS ARE WRONG STOP DOING THAT BECAUSE IT MAKES BETTER CAMERAS FUN
'Cuz it's not about photography to you. Never has been.
>EVF lag
Never seen it unless shooting fucking hummingbirds or using the digital loupe.

Now, can I see your camera?
Notice I am not asking for your photos.

I doubt you ever took any. And if you did, they probably suck.

>>4304372
Didn't they change from a metal lens mount to a metal bayonet attached to plastic between the d800 and d810? Kek

>>4304318
>>4304246
Im using a D7000 right now, whats the next step to full frame? D600?

>>4304393
The Pentax kr was my first DLSR from 2012-2014 when the shutterbox broke. I moved on to nikon since then and now I have 8 Nikon lens and only two Kmounts. both are manual focus old glass

>>4304392
I'd get a D800 unless you're really budget-constrained. I'll never be getting rid of mine.

>>4304400
>>4304401
whats a safe shuttercount for used 800s?

>>4304403
Nikon only tested them to 200k. Some have gone further. Some "tried the weather sealing" and died at 100k.

Sugar

I own both a D700 and a D800, I'll explain some things.

The colors and overall image quality are almost the same, on the same lenses. The D800 does higher ISOs and has a lower base ISO as well as more megapickles.

The biggest difference is AF. The D800 curbstomps it. I have underwater housings for both and the D700 will hunt underwater where as the D800 nails it first time every time. D800 does low light AF better.

Compared to the rest of the Jewtoob hypebeast cams the D700 is still a good deal. I paid 200 for mine after Jewtoobers hyped them. It doesn't sensor-band like the 5Dinosaur in the shadows. And with the advent of Z mount the DSLRs are coming down, I have seen my D800 for 500 bucks.

Anonymous

>>4304319
3 cameras to take snapshits of your mom

>>4304415
nta, but I think that's a really nice candid shot of his mom.

>>4304415
As opposed to what blurry hobos?

>>4304415
Since when do a D3 and a D800 make three cameras?

>>4304410
>d700 for 200

Was the guy selling it for crack or had like 230k shutter count?

>>4304668
That's cheap, but not much below market rate. I see them on MPB in decent condition for $250.

cANON

>>4304668
Why wouldn't a first generation budget full frame body be $200 now?

Anonymous

>>4304670
250 euros or pounds? That's like 450us or 500cnd.

>>4304736
Why can't we buy a d750 for peanuts? We can buy other expensive tech toys from 2014, like the iphone 6 plus, 2014 macbook pro 15" retina, etc in the $100-$200 range.

And yet ebay boomers continue thinking it's sane to pay $1500 for a d750 and a soft as shit slightly decentered zoom lens from 2008. This is like paying a grand for a

Camera sellers, and most camera buyers, are actual retards who have mistaken plastic japanese consumer electronics with multiple recalls out for luxury watches.

>>4304847
>This is like paying a grand for a
What the fuck I typed paying a grand for a . I didn't type nothing there, i typed " "

So these are overflated prices? The one in the middle has a shutter count of 300,000

>>4304847
you can instantly find a d750 on ebay for $600 nobody is paying $1500 for one

>>4304855
>$600
ripoff. $200 less than a used z6 or less beat up d780, wow.

should be $350 tops for a decent one.

>>4304854
Yeah that's kind of fucked. I paid $380 USD for my D800. Don't bother with the D800E. You get nothing extra except aliasing artifacts in some images whereas the D800 has none.

>>4304874
Hit the guy under that with a $350 offer unless it's fucked

>>4304875
>doesnt list the shutter count
why the fuck are people so dumb they cant do the one thing that will help their camera sell?

no way he will take 350 for it when he can clearly see other cameras selling for more than that

cANON

>>4304372
>just not totally like the retarded neighbor-murdering cuntbag motherfucking god damned russians
Don't tell me what not to do.

Anonymous

>>4304877
Because it's probably 200k kek

Buying anything good and old off ebay is impossible. It's all doubled in price because of forum and youtube comment sections flocking there. You have to watch craigslist/fb market, and be ready to negotiate.

cANON

>>4304847
Because photographic purchases, for most people, are personal luxury items unnecessary to their profitable work.
There is no "need" to upgrade their equipment or even own it to begin with.
Digital cameras also have a much longer lifespan than other electronics.
A 1990's DSLR with still produce the same photos that it always did, just on a slightly more inconvenient storage device.
Meanwhile, any non 4G/5G capable cellular phone has been rendered useless in North America and pre-Core laptops struggle with most multimedia applications.

>>4304877
>why the fuck are people so dumb they cant do the one thing that will help their camera sell?
It's not their business.
They'll probably sell 2 DSLRs in their entire life, at most.

>no way he will take 350 for it when he can clearly see
You called the guy dumb and now you're talking up his retail prowess?
Make up your mind.

Anonymous

>>4304886
>implying local sellers will EVER sell for asking price
Lol. Not unless it's already a bargain - or stolen gear/estate sale fodder and a bargain.

You could probably buy the d810 for $600. The D800+lens+grip+4 batteries for $550 is a fair price - remember if you bought it body only on ebay you'd pay another $50-60 in shipping and tax. If you sold the grip and lens you'd get $200 off = $350 D800.

>>4304886
what lenses are in that $1000 package? it might be $1000 worth of lenses

>>4304896
The grip one is good but its 2.5 hrs from me to get it. The $1000 one is in green bay, over 3.5 hours from me.
any savings Id have would be negated by the cost to drive there and back

only close one is this with 15K clicks

>>4304736
Because people are willing to pay more than that, and that's what sets the monetary value of things.

>>4304847
>Camera sellers, and most camera buyers
If the buyers are willing to pay that much then the sellers seem anything but stupid for asking it. You're just salty as fuck because the end result is that you can't afford the toy you want.

>>4304891
dumb people can see $ and think "i see price-i want price" its why you have boomers who have the no lowballers mentality. they see a number and want it like everyone else.

>>4304904
>2.5hrs
Whats that, $50 in gas?

Make the drive, sell the grip and lens (you already have lenses) for the ~$200 off. Or pay the convenience fee and offer $500 for the 15k click one and be glad you didn't have to pay $50 in extra fees.

>>4304885
>Buying anything good and old off ebay is impossible
There are still some good prices to be had.

>>4304898
>Everything you need to get out and start taking professional photos. Includes the camera body, three lenses, battery grip, spare batteries, speed light, cleaning accessories, and carrying bag.

>Lenses:
>Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 wide angle FX
>Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 non-vc, FX
>Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX (crop sensor)
>The camera and lenses alone are worth over $1000, so you’re basically getting everything else for free. Pickup east GB near Red Smith.

not bad. 7 hours round trip at 430 miles would be about $80 in gas

>>4304922
The lenses are worth maybe $800 together. the tamron 24-70 is ok, but not great.

worth it

>>4304927
he conveniently left out the shuttercount on the body. ill send him a message and see, if all goes well ill snag it this weekend

>>4304927
>the tamron 24-70 is ok, but not great
It also doesn't work right with the FTZ, which is (partly) why the used prices on these fell a lot in recent years.
For DSLR definitely a great bang for the buck right now.

cANON

>>4304904
God, Nikon vertical grips are ugly.

>>4304905
>Because people are willing to pay more than that
It depends on the model.
I see 5D Mark II's going for about $200.

>>4304906
Plenty of boomers have bills to pay too.
I've bought a lot of camera stuff by offering two-thirds or less of what the list price was.

Anonymous

>>4305016
Probably because canon DSLRs are junk with mft-tier sensors. Like the 5dsr, 50mp? Yes. Don't bother going over ISO 100.

>>4305018
The 5D Mk II sensor is certainly not as good as the ones Sony and Nikon were putting out at that time, but it blows the fuck out of anything in MFT.

>>4304837
They're old used up rags of cameras that's why ... if you're gonna get a dslr in todays world at least get one that will continue to have some life left in it.

>>4304869
meh. the z6 is only 2 years younger than d750, has same image quality, and is only an improvement for having from ibis and 4k video - things not everyone cares about. it SHOULD be worth only $200 more.
as for d780, where do you see those for less than $1200

>>4305201
The Z6 has much better image quality (better DR), and can use superior Z mount lenses that btfo all F mount harder than EF mount btfo'd F mount. Why do you think canon was the #1 brand when nikon had better sensors? Lenses. The average F mount lens is worse than its EF counterpart.

can someone tell my why everyone is dumping mirror box cameras for Z mount? it just because because its more portable and smaller?

>>4305225

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.6 (Windows)

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	841

Image Height	595

Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8

Pixel Composition	RGB

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2024:04:17 07:54:31

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	1682

Image Height	1190

>>4305225
The prime lenses are the best in the industry. Their only reasonable competition is sony’s 1.4 GM primes… vs cheaper f1.8 S lines. The professional 1.2s, telephoto primes, and named lenses (noct, plena) are just better than everyone elses.

The zoom lenses range between the best, to slightly different from canon. All canon has over nikon right now is a huge soft 24-105 f2.8 and a 28-70 f2. Not even mentioning the MFT tier scam lenses that vary to f8. Nikon also has the best long zoom, the 180-600. It’s the same speed as snoys but sharper with a wider range.

>>4305232
Sony cant be reasonable competition because then you have to use a sony
>etz adapter
Oh right

>>4304885
>>4304914
Nevermind, the lens is busted.

>>4305222
>Why do you think canon was the #1 brand when nikon had better sensors?
because Canon lenses had internal autofocus motors when Nikon was still fucking around with screwdrive, and Nikon never recovered

cANON

>>4305353
This, also electronic aperture but I'm not sure it's an advantage at all

Anonymous

>>4304246
It matters more if your camera is just a hobby (dedicated outings) or also a lifestyle thing (take camera to places just because). In the latter case upgrading to a newer mirrorless does help. the back screens are a lot better and they're faster to shoot. not FPS fast shooting (but that too). the VF is optional, the lens is stopped down for the view and there's a focus magnifier that makes manual a lot faster, the auto-autofocus is magic and exposure preview means you don't have to spot meter in difficult scenes. these dont matter as much if its just your hobby to go on photowalks, a DSLR can manage even with sports/wildlife. a DSLR might even better if you're night shooting, since there's no low light EVF lag/noise.

>>4305353
fuck internal autofocus motors all my homies hate internal autofocus motors
screwdrive niggas will live forever!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>4308066
Preach, brother. Internal AF is a scam by Big Lens to screw with the used market and make us buy new.

>>4305349
Is that lens not a tilt model?

>>4308079
pro bodies cost less than pro lenses so why wouldnt they be the expendable part
especially used gear, why rely on a lens that might chew up its contacts when you can have a sturdy as shit screw drive and swap bodies when they inevitably die

This Asian girl is selling a D810 with 85k shutter and lens grip and batteries for $800, should I offer her 700?

>>4308855
>asian girl
>willing to meet up
agree to whatever price and meetup
then tire kick price down

>>4308856
What are you saying, Asians are pushovers on price?

>>4308859
Yes also crack some jokes and have sex with her

>>4308890
She has a Korean boyfriend according to her profile buddy

>>4308895
So?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Canon

Camera Model	Canon EOS 80D

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 11.0 (Macintosh)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2018:10:10 12:38:27

Exposure Time	1/200 sec

F-Number	f/11.0

Exposure Program	Manual

ISO Speed Rating	100

Lens Aperture	f/11.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	100.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Manual

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4308855
$600 IMO. That lens is dogshit by the way.

>>4308908
Unfortunate. I don’t have an FX lens in that range currently. I can body-only d810s for $650-700, but I thought the lens and extra batteries and grip was a nice bonus. I’m not sure if I will even use the grip

>>4308912
I would consider the lens worth $0 in the deal.

>>4308912
You can sell the lens for $150 or $200 easy

It is worth money and the batteries would probably be $100 ($80 for nikon $20 for 2x third party) if you had to buy them yourself

>>4304246
No, it's actually everything better than a d610 is diminishing returns. D750 if you INSIST on shooting from 2 feet off the ground.

All you can do past that is double your megapixels or buy into a premium lens mount where the gear costs double for 50% more resolution. Worth it? Absolutely, but this site is plagued with as many broke bitches who lost their money in crypto scams as it is with rich bitches.

>>4304246
everything after the F2 is diminishing returns

>>4308895
He can clean up after you get done.

Dated DSLR bros, I'm seeing a bunch of d200, d70 etc videos coming up on youtube lately. They were always there, but it's accelerating.

The end is near. Grab your old nikons while you can. The normies are waking up. Next thing you know we'll run out of af-d 24mms, 12-24 f4s, and dx 35 f1.8s.

>>4308982
Whew I’m safe for another day

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	1084

Image Height	1280

>>4308982
2 d200 videos and a d500 video in the past week ITS OVER

THE STREET PHOTOGRAPHERS FOUND OUT NOBODY CARES IF THEY USE A DSLR

>>4308982
nonono please no I was just thinking about picking up a bunch of DX lenses. At least I have a D40 already.

>>4308855
Damn I think it might be a scam

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi

Vertical Resolution	144 dpi

Image Width	750

Image Height	1161

Does the D700 become a semi D3 when you add a grip?

>>4310658
Kinda. It still isn't as fast as one, the build quality isn't quite as tough, the shutter will not last as long, and you don't have voice memos, but you are getting most of the D3 experience out of it.

On the plus side, the MB-D10 is a fucking massive chunky grip that may fit your hands better than the D3's vertical grip if you have large hands, the MB-D10 also has its own AF joystick, whereas the D3 only has one, which makes adjusting your AF point while in vertical use a big reach for your thumb; the EN-EL3 batteries for the D700 are really fucking cheap compared to the ones the D3 takes.

Overall, if I didn't already have a D3, and I wanted to choose between the two of them, I would set a budget of $350 and get whichever of them I could that was in the best condition, with the provision that the D700 comes with at least two batteries and the MB-D10.


Depth/Focus

Ansel Adams used to tilt the plate is his cameras in order to get his entire photo in focus at once, regardless of the depth of field. Now we all just go to the highest f stop value possible and shoot for the best. Alternatively some with set up with a tripod, and take 10 photos of the same exact scene with different focus points, and blend them all into one picture in photoshop. Others hate the concept and prefer a visual reference to the depth of field with an area clearly in focus and an area that is clearly not. This then begs the question, is focus better long range or up close?
I played around with the concept a bit. I took two pictures, one just as far back as possible, and then another on the close foreground. I did this trying to see which style I liked better. Personally I like the foreground in focus, but the other person I asked preferred the shot with the background in focus.

so what do you guys think? do you have a preference? Or do you like the Incel Adams "everything in focus" approach?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D610

Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 7.2 (Windows)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	850

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi

Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

Image Created	2024:04:21 14:20:47

Exposure Time	1/4000 sec

F-Number	f/4.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	800

Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Spot

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	50.00 mm

Comment	452942

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Landscape

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

second shot

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION

Camera Model	NIKON D610

Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 7.2 (Windows)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Color Filter Array Pattern	850

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi

Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

Image Created	2024:04:21 14:21:00

Exposure Time	1/4000 sec

F-Number	f/4.0

Exposure Program	Aperture Priority

ISO Speed Rating	640

Lens Aperture	f/4.0

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Spot

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	50.00 mm

Comment	452942

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Landscape

Gain Control	Low Gain Up

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

Subject Distance Range	Unknown

#2 except w/o distracting foreground elements ruining otherwise ok snap

I like #2 better, but a lot of modern cameras have focus bracketing built in and lightroom makes combining them take like 3 clicks

>>4306391
Sounds like you need to get your hands on a monorail camera, so you can play around with tilt, swing, and shift. It really opens up a huge world of possibilities. Photography becomes a lot more technical, but that's not a bad thing.

Aaaand just so you know... You can buy backplates that will adapt your digital camera to your view camera! No need to futz around with expensive sheet film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

I recently found some old fotos of almost flat surfaces (posters wrapped around a broad lantern pole) that are ruined because I didnt use the right f stop and now half of the shit is not in focus when there is even the slightest relief, cameratilt or roundess. It seems I have to use at least f/7.1 by default.

>>4306391
>>4306392
I prefer the second, it feels as if you're actually there under the tree covering peering out at the waterfall. I imagine that's what you were doing while you were there, not looking around at the leaves. I would perhaps selectively darken the foreground a little bit so it's more of a distinct frame (could be tedious), that's the impression the thumbnail gives but then you enlarge it and the effect isn't as strong.

While I agree that a shallow depth of field is a crutch to many people it's also a vital tool, it can direct the viewers gaze and make the rest less distracting. Of course you should try and get the best composition you can but sometimes you get what you get. Also our eyes don't have an infinite depth of field so it goes part way to replicating that. Sure if you're looking out onto a landscape there's not much specific you'll be focussing on with other stuff in the foreground and background. But if I hold up something in front of my right now my eyes are focussed on that and my monitor a foot away in the background is out of focus.

>>4306391
>but the other person I asked
there was no other person you asked. you're some shutin who is too afraid to talk to people in real life so you're forced to make low effort threads like this, because you've been spending your entire life doing retarded shit like this on plebbit hoping to farm karma, but forgot no such thing exists here

>>4307374
Id give him an updoot. At the very least this isn't another gear thread, right?

>>4307377
If you read between the lines he's shilling for tilt-shift lenses or alternatively, bellows

>>4307514
No that's just me. I want more people to shoot large format and post it on fgt. I shill it for the love not the money.

4x5 dude is a zoophile

>>4307516
your snapshits and constant reddit tier comments actually made me never want to shoot 4x5.

4x5 dude is cool

>>4307520
Your weird obsession with animal rape makes me want to shoot 4x5 dog photos just to make you implode with seethe.

Anonymous

>>4307521
He's obsessed with reddit as well! Lol!

>>4307521
Look at what is achievable using a 4x5 camera! Isn't this simply remarkable?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Model	Perfection V800

Equipment Make	EPSON

Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.2.2 (Android)

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Width	10392

Image Height	13184

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Image Created	2024:04:10 07:36:59

Color Space Information	sRGB

Light Source	Unknown

>>4307372
Thanks man I appreciate the feedback

>>4307374
Go be a gay faggot somewhere else

>>4306392
go to f8, don't need to make the foreground that blurry, it gets distracting then

>>4306391
both shots are shit but the first one is WAY BETTER than the second one.

second shot with everything in focus is too busy especially in your case where every fucking thing in the image is the same color, same shape and all bunched up together. only an artless retard would prefer the second shot over the first one

>>4307806

Yeah, because blurring the only interesting thing in the scene is "art"

>>4306402
For me it’s the Cambo Actus.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi

Vertical Resolution	144 dpi

Color Space Information	sRGB

Image Width	1359

Image Height	1573

>>4306391
>>4306392
It's just not a good photo

You should buy the 24-120 f4 vr for landscape photography in busy areas like woodlands, where it's sometimes impossible to zoom with your feet

>>4310621
BASED. Is it worth slapping a dslr on the back of a view camera? The mounting backs are kinda pricey.

>>4310643
I am running canon mirrorless bodies on the back with mamiya medium format lenses….. Although I really want to grab a Fuji film GFX, but that multiplies the cost a lot…..using the setup for stop motion and Timelapse in my studio. Yeah the Cambo stuff is $$$.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	Apple

Camera Model	iPhone 11 Pro Max

Camera Software	16.6.1

Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2023:11:02 23:08:36

Exposure Time	1/58 sec

F-Number	f/1.8

Exposure Program	Normal Program

ISO Speed Rating	400

Lens Aperture	f/1.8

Brightness	1.1 EV

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	4.25 mm

Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

Image Width	2462

Image Height	3668

Exposure Mode	Auto

White Balance	Auto

Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4306402

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor<wbr>a/photography/tips-and-solutions/us<wbr>ing-a-large-format-camera-to-make-d<wbr>igital-photographs

Searching for these 3D printed files. I imagine they are the authors home brew. Would be cool to adapt my next technical camera.

>>4310951
here is the one from the BH blog post.

https://standardcameras.com/product<wbr>s/the-standard-4x5-2-0

here's some others:
https://www.printables.com/search/m<wbr>odels?q=4x5%20camera

https://thangs.com/search/4x5%20cam<wbr>era?scope=all&view=grid

>>4310622
Yeah I know it’s bad. I’m just fucking around with foreground/background blur from extreme distance differences and its impact on the outcome of the photo.

Neither one of these are going to be printed or published. It’s just to start a discussion of what the role of a foreground should be. A frame for the background? What if it’s the subject instead? Or is anale Adams the best answer of “fuck it everything is in focus”
Which aesthetic choice do you like better? Which do you use? Can you provide examples with pictures you’ve taken?

>>4307535
>Isn't this simply remarkable?
nah


Ask someone buying their first Snoy today anything

Got a good bonus at work and decided to finally retire my Canon 6D. Will be going Sony after seeing what the mirrorless landscape looks like with CaNikon.

Canon, makes decent bodies and fantastic lenses, that R8 is probably the best entry level FF camera you can get. Still gatekeeping RF mount and will no doubt cripple R bodies to protect the cinema line. Lenses are probably the best but almost double the price of Snoys in my meme country.

Nikon, feels the best to me in hand and I really like the RAWs the most. Menus and AF settings make the most sense but no real Z mount 16-35 f2.8 equivalent and the pro-grade 50mm being the size of a 24-70 is a big loss since those are my two most lenses.

Sony, looks like the logical choice. Bodies have everything you could need crammed into them, native lenses are a good balance between perfect optical quality and being corrected by software means I don't carry around any too big or heavy. I like being able to buy an A7S/FX3 in the future if I wanted to get serious with vid. Colors/skin tones don't seem to be oversharpened/saturated like before. Ergonomics aren't the best and you do get the stigma of being another zoomer buying a Sony to shoot zoomer things but hey, it is what it is.

Pic related, hopefully me with my Snoy A7IV.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make	SONY

Camera Model	ILCE-6000

Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)

Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi

Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

Image Created	2015:09:08 16:17:54

Exposure Time	1/100 sec

F-Number	f/2.8

Exposure Program	Manual

ISO Speed Rating	2000

Lens Aperture	f/2.8

Brightness	-2.4 EV

Exposure Bias	0 EV

Metering Mode	Pattern

Light Source	Unknown

Flash	No Flash, Compulsory

Focal Length	16.00 mm

Color Space Information	sRGB

Rendering	Normal

Exposure Mode	Manual

White Balance	Manual

Scene Capture Type	Standard

Contrast	Normal

Saturation	Normal

Sharpness	Normal

>>4306443
A7IV sucks for vids with the backplate being plastic instead of magnesium. Blame Snoy for cheaping out on Playstation quality. If you care about video instead of stills, spend more or wait and pray for next gen. If you already have a plan for A7S/FX3 why not got them now? Getting something you don't want now is always inefficient with photography.

>>4306444
My current work now is 95% stills and I'm still learning video so I don't want to buy an FX3 and be like wtf am I doing. I shoot weddings and events now but I have some other areas I'm looking at where I think video content would be what I want to make instead of stills.

Would rather get an A7IV and get building the lens collection and then upgrade to one of their vid centric offerings when I know where I'm hitting the limitations of the A7IV and have a better idea of what will be the next body to give me what I need.

>>4306443

snoy user actually rate lenses?

Screenshot 2024-04-24 at 07-46-57 Sony FE 50mm F1.8.png

>>4306449
You could look at finding a decent used A1, would be cheaper than A7IV + FX3 together.
Would be better for stills and video than A7IV, especially with the new fw update, though FX3 being a dedicated video camera btfos it in usability on that front, even if downsampled video from the A1 sensor would technically be sharper.

I use mine for video all the time but I must have taken a total of 10 pictures on it. It's a tool I need for work. But if I ever go out I grab my xt5.

One thing I'll say is whatever waterproofing problems they used to have those things are sealed tight now.
I shot a mermaid themed opera (don't ask) and had the thing splashed like 10 dozen times. Works fine half a year later. My old Nikon used to go out for repair at least once a year.

>>4306443
For what it’s worth, the 14-30 f/4 and 14-24 f/2.8 Z lenses are both incredible. And you can use the Sony 50 1.2 GM on a Nikon body seamlessly with a Megadap ETZ21 adapter, that’s what I do. Agree with you about the size of the Nikkor being a bummer. I really like the Sony 50. So you could have the best of both worlds.

>>4307214
And you won’t need to buy a video-centric body if you get a Z8.

>>4307195
i actually prefer the look of images taken with a7iv sensor.

a good/bad lens makes or breaks the image quality but no matter which lens you put on a1, the images always look digital/robotic... idk how to explain it. they look like AI made them

OP here, I got a better deal at the store on an open box A7RV so I went with it instead of the A7IV. So far I am pretty happy with my choice, I'm going camping this weekend so I'm taking it alongside the 16-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 GM to do some astro and landscapes.

The AF is what has impressed me the most, that AI chip really works even when my subject looks away. I have a black dog and it still manages to keep the AF on its eye surrounded by black fur. The files seem great, heard that the AI chip in this helps nailing white balance and desu I've not had to manually tweak it in Lightroom. I've also shot photos of people and the skin tones seem fine, no ugly shift to yellow or green or magenta. I'm using a few profiles in LR to see what works the best.

I'm also looking forward to picking up the smaller 1.4 primes down the line as well. I've got zero interest in carrying around that huge Nikkor or Cannot 1.2's so I think Snoy's approach of getting good enough optically and fixing the rest via software is good for most normies like me.

Nothing really retarded stands out to me yet- menus are fine, probably if you want to customise everything then you'll not like it but I find it alright.

>>4311050
>snoy
Keep us updated through your HRT

>>4311052
OP here, just took my Snoy CFexpress tough HRT with my AI autodilation. I am glad to finally be a real woman! No weather sealing down there with the surgery but I'll be ok!!!


pictures from a recent trip

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	2048

Image Height	1536

>>4306656

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	2048

Image Height	1365

>>4306657

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1365

Image Height	2048

>>4306658

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1365

Image Height	2048

>>4306660

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1365

Image Height	2048

>>4306661

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1300

Image Height	2048

>>4306662

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1365

Image Height	2048

>>4306665

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1803

Image Height	2048

>>4306666

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	2048

Image Height	573

>>4306668
last one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Camera Software	Capture One Windows

Image-Specific Properties:

Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi

Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Image Width	1365

Image Height	2048

>>4306656
If this is a self portrait, that’s a gigachad McHugeballs move to open the thread with it. If not then pretty gay.

>>4306674
everyone on /p/ looks like that with varying degrees of beard and bald desu

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4306716
I went to Tenerife, didn't see many beaches but hiked up the highest peak in Spain.

bump I'm not letting a photo thread be pushed off by a gear thread


jpeg recovery tool that isnt a money grab

I have an old jpeg thats corrupted that im trying to open. The last 6 apps i've tried display the pic, but either output it as a tiny thumbnail, or heavily watermark the image to the point of ruining it.

Does anyone know of an app that's free that is actually free to fix busted jpegs? Thanks, anons

r-photo is one of the better free options <br>most free options in this category kinda suck

>>4304405
unless I'm retarded, that appears to be an app to recover deleted stuff. I'm looking for something that fix's jpegs that are corrupted, not deleted. That, or I'm too stupid to use it properly???

>>4304711
>I'm too stupid
yes
also
>>>/g/

>>4304773
I debated that before posting, but it seems like the photog anons should have some experience in this realm. Besides, /g/ is too broad. If you guys can't come back with anything, I'll try over there...

>>4304711
gimp?
>open image
>click save as

>>4306409
You know nothing.
When a JPEG image is corrupt, no application will open it. You need special software to repair the file as it is a heavily compressed format reliant on decompression to deliver the pixels. If something in the chain breaks, the file is "bricked" from normal programs point of view, but recovery software can detect where errors rise and you can replace bad data to fix the problems.
A few bad bits can brick a JPEG. Fixing those bits will fix the file, you might lose some 8x8 blocks but the rest can be fine. GIMP won't help with this. GIMP is what you'd use after repair to then edit out the missing blocks to fill in the missing pixels.

>>4310786
so far he knows more than you since he's actually recommended software that is free of charge and by your own admission is able to fix busted jpegs

>>4304301
Try photorec. It might not be able to fix it but it will definitely be able to find a copy of the file within the disk that was temporarily created while moving or editing or viewing since all the software creates temp versions of files while accessing it. Chances are that at least one of the recovered copies might not be damaged

>>4310787
I know English is not your first language, but consider using a translator.
GIMP does not fix busted JPEGs
GIMPO NO EL FIXO LA JPEGGOS PUTA MADRE

GIMP won't even open a busted JPEG. It just gives you an error.